It was also challenging to design forms that recorded nonresponse of eligible subjects but not nonresponse of ineligible study subjects.
If applicable, the number of ineligible subjects that received treatment and the reasons for ineligibility will be summarised.
After ineligible subjects were excluded, 689 teachers were included in the analyses.
Cervical cancer records before May 2000 were also surveyed to exclude the ineligible subjects.
Eligible subjects were slightly older and more likely to be non-smokers than ineligible subjects (data not shown).
Thus, after the exclusion of ineligible subjects (n = 144), we had identified a population-based cohort of 65,657 men.
Among the ineligible subjects, 16 did not meet the initial enrollment criteria and 1,301 could not be located.
Therefore, we selected a sample size of 680 subjects, in consideration of the likely number of ineligible subjects and subjects not treated as specified.
After excluding the ineligible subjects, the total number of participants was 3,770 1,9044 were female), which were divided into MHO and MS groups and analyzed.
That is, they became more skilled at scanning the rosters and differentiating potentially eligible from ineligible subjects based on gestational age, birth date, and type of visit.
The sex-ratio did not differ between the 653 eligible and 732 ineligible subjects (including 493 subjects lost to follow-up, 220 without blood sample and 19 with blood sample but unsatisfactory spirometry).
