Quality of Reporting of Noninferiority and Equivalence Randomized Trials

Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U738, Paris, France.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 04/2006; 295(10):1147-51. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.10.1147
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Noninferiority and equivalence trials aim to show that the experimental treatment is not clinically worse than (noninferior) or clinically similar to (equivalent) a control active treatment. These study objectives imply particular planning and analysis.
To assess the methodologic quality of reports of randomized controlled trials of noninferiority and equivalence.
We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for reports of randomized controlled trials of noninferiority and equivalence hypotheses published between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004.
Data extracted by use of a standardized form involved assessment of choice of noninferiority or equivalence margins, sample size calculation, sets of patients analyzed, method of statistical testing and reporting results, and conclusions.
A total of 162 reports were included in the analysis (116 reports of noninferiority and 46 of equivalence). The margin defining noninferiority or equivalence was described in most reports (156 [96.3%]), with justification of the margin in only 33 (20.4%). Almost one quarter of the reports (35 [21.6%]) did not describe a sample size calculation, and an additional 11 (6.8%) did not take into account a prespecified noninferiority or equivalence margin. Less than half of the reports (69 [42.6%]) described both an intent-to-treat (ITT; all randomized patients are included in the analysis) or modified ITT (patients who never received treatment are excluded) and per-protocol (patients who did not complete the treatment are excluded) analysis, and only about half of those (39 [56.5%]) described both types of results. Results were displayed with confidence intervals in 136 reports (84.0%). Only 33 articles (20.3%) fulfilled reporting requirements specific to noninferiority and equivalence trials, 4 of them (12.1%) with misleading conclusions.
Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence trials has important deficiencies: absence of noninferiority or equivalence margin, only an ITT (or a per-protocol) analysis performed, and results not adequately reported. Moreover, even for articles fulfilling these requirements, conclusions are sometimes misleading.


Available from: Philippe Ravaud, Apr 26, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There were three aims of this study, the first was to examine the efficacy of CBT versus treatment-as-usual (TAU) in the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders, the second was to examine how TAU is defined in TAU control groups for those disorders, and the third was to explore whether the type of TAU condition influences the estimate of effects of CBT. A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was conducted. 48 studies of CBT for depressive or anxiety disorders (n=6926) that specified that their control group received TAU were identified. Most (n=45/48) provided an explanation of the TAU group however there was significant heterogeneity amongst TAU conditions. The meta-analysis showed medium effects favoring CBT over TAU for both anxiety (g=0.69, 95% CI 0.47-0.92, p<0.001, n=1318) and depression (g=0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.90, p<0.001, n=5054), with differential effects observed across TAU conditions. CBT is superior to TAU and the size of the effect of CBT compared to TAU depends on the nature of the TAU condition. The term TAU is used in different ways and should be more precisely described. The four key details to be reported can be thought of as "who, what, how many, and any additional treatments?" Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 12/2014; 175C:152-167. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.025 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The noninferiority of a novel therapy compared with a standard of care is customarily defined by a noninferiority margin derived from an assessment of what would constitute a clinically relevant decrement in efficacy while preserving some of the treatment effect over placebo. Conundrum: If the one-sided 97.5% CI around the difference in the point estimates of efficacy between the two treatments (investigational drug minus comparator drug) does not extend below the prespecified threshold, noninferiority of the new agent to the comparator is typically concluded. In some cases, the corresponding two-sided 95% CI will fall entirely between zero and the noninferiority delta, technically implying inferiority and noninferiority concurrently. Solution: Stipulating that the upper bound of the two-sided confidence interval reach or exceed zero (as well as fall entirely above the noninferiority limit) to establish statistical noninferiority versus the comparator would avoid paradoxical interpretations.
    Future Virology 11/2012; 7(11):1055-1063. DOI:10.2217/fvl.12.101 · 1.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Obstetric Anesthesia Digest 01/2012; 32(3):184. DOI:10.1097/01.aoa.0000417604.57295.29