Sentence examples for majority of efficacy from inspiring English sources

The majority of efficacy outcomes are presented for all patients randomized to receive either CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks or CZP 400 mg every 4 weeks at baseline (randomized set), although selected data are also shown for patients who were rerandomized from placebo to either of the CZP dose regimens at week 16 or 24.

Although FAP has existed as a therapy for nearly three decades, there is a limited amount of research examining its efficacy, and the majority of FAP efficacy studies use single-subject data.

For the majority of examined efficacy and safety outcomes, IGlar use in T2DM patients was superior or non-inferior to the alternative insulin treatment options.

For the majority of secondary efficacy end points, including response rate and reduction in seizure frequency, there were statistically significant differences between ESL 1,200 mg and placebo, and similar trends occurred with ESL 800 mg.

In conclusion, for the majority of examined efficacy and safety outcomes, IGlar use in T2DM patients was superior or at least non-inferior to the alternative insulin treatment options (Table  3).

The superiority of OLM/AML over PER/AML was also established for the majority of secondary efficacy variables; at the final examination, 75.6% of OLM/AML recipients achieved BP normalization (mean seated systolic BP/diastolic BP <140/90 mmHg) compared with 57.5% of PER/AML recipients (p < 0.0001).

Although post-operative chemotherapy was implemented in the majority of patients, the efficacy of concurrent post-operative chemotherapy and radiotherapy in improving the prognosis of OMM should be further investigated in prospective trials.

For the great majority of antiemetic drugs efficacy and effectiveness has been demonstrated in numerous prophylaxis trials with PONV setting and other indications where nausea and vomiting occur (e.g. radio- and chemotherapy for cancer).

The development and validation process of the majority of the self-efficacy instruments had major limitations.

The majority of the self-efficacy instrument versions was developed for diabetes patients (n = 14).

However, the development and validation process of the majority of these self-efficacy instruments shows important limitations.