Cited by 106Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Lessons From and Cautions About Noninferiority and Equivalence Randomized Trials

Gøtzsche, Peter C.·2006·JAMA

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.295.10.1172

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An important cause of the confusion is the lack of uniformity and transparency in terminology.

    “An important cause of the confusion is the lack of uniformity and transparency in terminology 15 .”

    From Understanding Equivalence and Noninferiority Testing (2011) · cites this paper as [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gøtzsche, P. C.
Corresponding author
Gøtzsche, Peter C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2006-03-08
Volume
295
Issue
10
Pages
1172
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2060584773
Cited by
106
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
equivalence trials, randomized controlled trials, trial design, statistical inference, clinical trial interpretation
MeSH terms
Publishing, Research Design, Therapeutic Equivalency, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review