Cited by 65Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Bio-creep in non-inferiority clinical trials

Everson‐Stewart, Siobhan, Emerson, Scott S.·2010·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

After a non‐inferiority clinical trial, a new therapy may be accepted as effective, even if its treatment effect is slightly smaller than the current standard. It is therefore possible that, after a series of trials where the new therapy is slightly worse than the preceding drugs, an ineffective or harmful therapy might be incorrectly declared efficacious; this is known as ‘bio‐creep’. Several factors may influence the rate at which bio‐creep occurs, including the distribution of the effects of the new agents being tested and how that changes over time, the choice of active comparator, the method used to account for the variability of the estimate of the effect of the active comparator, and changes in the effect of the active comparator from one trial to the next (violations of the constancy assumption). We performed a simulation study to examine which of these factors might lead to bio‐creep and found that bio‐creep was rare, except when the constancy assumption was violated. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.4053

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Everson‐Stewart, S., & Emerson, S. S.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Everson‐Stewart, Siobhan
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08-30
Volume
29
Issue
27
Pages
2769-2780
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2111363763
Cited by
64
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Collection of Biostatistics Research Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007183)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
active comparator, simulation study, drug approval
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Statistical, Bias, Confidence Intervals, Proportional Hazards Models, Treatment Outcome, Controlled Clinical 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