Methodology of superiority vs. equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials

被引:141
作者
Christensen, Erik [1 ]
机构
[1] Bispebjerg Hosp, Clin Internal Med 1, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.jhep.2007.02.015
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is generally accepted as the best method of comparing effects of therapies. Most often the aim of an RCT is to show that a new therapy is superior to an established therapy or placebo, i.e. they are planned and performed as superiority trials. Sometimes the aim of an RCT is just to show that a new therapy is not superior but equivalent to or not inferior to an established therapy, i.e. they are planned and performed as equivalence trials or non-inferiority trials. Since the types of trials have different aims, they differ significantly in various methodological aspects. The awareness of the methodological differences is generally quite limited. This paper reviews the methodology of these types of trials with special reference to differences in respect to planning, performance, analysis and reporting of the trial. In this context the relevant basal statistical concepts are reviewed. Some of the important points are illustrated by examples. (C) 2007 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:947 / 954
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration
    Altman, DG
    Schulz, KF
    Moher, D
    Egger, M
    Davidoff, F
    Elbourne, D
    Gotzsche, PC
    Lang, T
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (08) : 663 - 694
  • [2] Armitage P., 2001, STAT METHODS MED RES, V4th
  • [3] Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement
    Begg, C
    Cho, M
    Eastwood, S
    Horton, R
    Moher, D
    Olkin, I
    Pitkin, R
    Rennie, D
    Schulz, KF
    Simel, D
    Stroup, DF
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (08): : 637 - 639
  • [4] PROVING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS
    BLACKWELDER, WC
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1982, 3 (04): : 345 - 353
  • [5] Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials -: Comparison of Protocols to published articles
    Chan, AW
    Hróbjartsson, A
    Haahr, MT
    Gotzsche, PC
    Altman, DG
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (20): : 2457 - 2465
  • [6] Negative results in cancer clinical trials - equivalence or poor accrual?
    Costa, LJM
    Xavier, ACG
    del Giglio, A
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 2004, 25 (05): : 525 - 533
  • [7] WHEN WAS A NEGATIVE CLINICAL-TRIAL BIG ENOUGH - HOW MANY PATIENTS YOU NEEDED DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU FOUND
    DETSKY, AS
    SACKETT, DL
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1985, 145 (04) : 709 - 712
  • [8] Negative results of randomized clinical trials published in the surgical literature - Equivalency or error?
    Dimick, JB
    Diener-West, M
    Lipsett, PA
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2001, 136 (07) : 796 - 800
  • [9] Scientific and ethical issues in equivalence trials
    Djulbegovic, B
    Clarke, M
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 285 (09): : 1206 - 1208
  • [10] PLANNING AND MONITORING OF EQUIVALENCE STUDIES
    DURRLEMAN, S
    SIMON, R
    [J]. BIOMETRICS, 1990, 46 (02) : 329 - 336