Cited by 205Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPharmaceutical studies and practices

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

Christensen, Erik·2007·Journal of Hepatology

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhep.2007.02.015

Cites

28 of 28 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

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Christensen, E.
Affiliations
Bispebjerg Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Christensen, Erik
Venue
Journal of Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-05
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
947-954
ISSN
0168-8278 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018758420
Cited by
205
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
superiority trials, equivalence trials, randomized controlled trials, trial design, statistical analysis, trial reporting, statistical concepts, treatment comparison
MeSH terms
Animals, Clinical Protocols, Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Patient Compliance, Research Design, Therapeutic Equivalency, Confidence Intervals, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size, Risk Assessment

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