Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials--update and extension.

Trials

Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 305, Heidelberg, D-69120, Germany.

Published: November 2012

Background: Non-inferiority and equivalence trials require tailored methodology and therefore adequate conduct and reporting is an ambitious task. The aim of our review was to assess whether the criteria recommended by the CONSORT extension were followed.

Methods: We searched the Medline database and the Cochrane Central Register for reports of randomised non-inferiority and equivalence trials published in English language. We excluded reports on bioequivalence studies, reports targeting on other than the main results of a trial, and articles of which the full-text version was not available. In total, we identified 209 reports (167 non-inferiority, 42 equivalence trials) and assessed the reporting and methodological quality using abstracted items of the CONSORT extension.

Results: Half of the articles did not report on the method of randomisation and only a third of the trials were reported to use blinding. The non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined in most reports (94%), but was justified only for a quarter of the trials. Sample size calculation was reported for a proportion of 90%, but the margin was taken into account in only 78% of the trials reported. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis were presented in less than half of the reports. When reporting the results, a confidence interval was given for 85% trials. A proportion of 21% of the reports presented a conclusion that was wrong or incomprehensible. Overall, we found a substantial lack of quality in reporting and conduct. The need to improve also applied to aspects generally recommended for randomised trials. The quality was partly better in high-impact journals as compared to others.

Conclusions: There are still important deficiencies in the reporting on the methodological approach as well as on results and interpretation even in high-impact journals. It seems to take more than guidelines to improve conduct and reporting of non-inferiority and equivalence trials.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554513PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-214DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

non-inferiority equivalence
24
equivalence trials
16
trials
9
quality reporting
8
conduct reporting
8
reporting methodological
8
trials reported
8
high-impact journals
8
reports
7
non-inferiority
6

Similar Publications

Technical validation of the Zeto wireless, dry electrode EEG system.

Biomed Phys Eng Express

January 2025

Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford Medicine, 213 Quarry Road, Palo Alto, California, 94305-5101, UNITED STATES.

Clinical adoption of innovative EEG technology is contingent on the non-inferiority of the new devices relative to conventional ones. We present the four key results from testing the signal quality of Zeto's WR19 EEG system against a conventional EEG system conducted on patients in a clinical setting. Methods: We performed 30-minute simultaneous recordings using the Zeto WR19 (zEEG) and a conventional clinical EEG system (cEEG) in a cohort of 15 patients.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication after hip arthroplasty. Here, we investigated the clinical efficacy and safety of prophylactic aspirin vs. conventional therapy in hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Secondary spontaneous pneumothorax (SSP) is a medical emergency where the lung collapses in the presence of underlying chronic lung disease. Current international clinical guidelines advise intercostal drain (ICD) insertion for SSP. However, in a previous small study needle aspiration (NA) has been shown to reduce length of hospital stay (LOHS) and reduce complications.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Randomized controlled trials - The what, when, how and why.

J Pediatr Urol

December 2024

Department of Pediatric Urology and Pediatric Surgery, Hôpital Pellegrin-Enfants, University Hospital Bordeaux, Bordeux, France. Electronic address:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are at the top of the pyramid of evidence as they offer the best answer on the efficacy of a new treatment. RCTs are true experiments in which participants are randomly allocated to receive a certain intervention (experimental group) or a different intervention (comparison group), or no treatment at all (control or placebo group). Randomization, along with other methodological features such as blinding and allocation concealment, safeguard against biases.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Shorter courses of antimicrobial therapy have been shown to be non-inferior to longer durations for the management of several infections. However, data on critically ill patients with severe infections by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) are scarce. In the duratiOn of theraPy in severe infecTIons by MultIdrug-reSistant gram-nEgative bacteria (OPTIMISE) trial, we assessed the non-inferiority of 7-day versus 14-day antimicrobial therapy for patients with intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired severe infections by MDR-GNB.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!