What differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 10, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Gayet Ageron, Angèle ^a   Agoritsas, Thomas ^a   Combescure, Christophe ^a   Bagamery, Krisztina ^a   Courvoisier, Delphine S ^a   Perneger, Thomas V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; INTERNAL MEDICINE; MENTAL HEALTH; METHODOLOGY; PHARMACOKINETICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERNAL MEDICINE; MENTAL HEALTH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SAMPLE SIZE; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY;

EID: 77957893073     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-93     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Determination of the clinical importance of study results. M Man-Son-Hing A Laupacis K O'Rourke FJ Molnar J Mahon KB Chan G Wells, J Gen Intern Med 2002 17 6 469 476 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.11111.x 12133163
2. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. KF Schulz DA Grimes, Lancet 2005 365 9467 1348 1353 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61034-3 15823387
3. Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. AW Chan A Hrobjartsson KJ Jorgensen PC Gotzsche DG Altman, BMJ 2008 337 2299 10.1136/bmj.a2299 19056791
4. What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals? KA McKibbon NL Wilczynski RB Haynes, BMC Med 2004 2 33 10.1186/1741-7015-2-33 15350200
5. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. RB Haynes KA McKibbon NL Wilczynski SD Walter SR Werre, BMJ 2005 330 7501 1179 10.1136/bmj.38446.498542.8F 15894554
6. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. C Begg M Cho S Eastwood R Horton D Moher I Olkin R Pitkin D Rennie KF Schulz D Simel,, et al. JAMA 1996 276 8 637 639 10.1001/jama.276.8.637 8773637
7. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. D Moher KF Schulz DG Altman, Lancet 2001 357 9263 1191 1194 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3 11323066 (Pubitemid 32378696)
8. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. G Piaggio DR Elbourne DG Altman SJ Pocock SJ Evans, JAMA 2006 295 10 1152 1160 10.1001/jama.295.10.1152 16522836
9. Indexes and boundaries for "quantitative significance" in statistical decisions. B Burnand WN Kernan AR Feinstein, J Clin Epidemiol 1990 43 12 1273 1284 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90093-5 2254764
10. Demonstrating equivalence. D Machin M Campbell P Fayers A Pinol, Sample size tables for clinical studies Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd 2 1997 31
11. Comparing independent groups for binary, ordered categorical and continuous data. D Machin C M P Fayers A Pinol, Sample size tables for clinical studies Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd 2 1997 50
12. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. J Cohen, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2 1988
13. Stroke and cardiovascular diseases: the need for a global approach for prevention and drug development. L Hilbrich T Truelsen S Yusuf, Int J Stroke 2007 2 2 104 108 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2007.00118.x 18705961
14. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. CB Terwee LD Roorda J Dekker SM Bierma-Zeinstra G Peat KP Jordan P Croft HC de Vet, J Clin Epidemiol 63 5 524 534 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.010 19926446
15. Choice of delta: requirements and reality-results of a systematic review. S Lange G Freitag, Biom J 2005 47 1 12 27 discussion 99-107 10.1002/bimj.200410085 16395993
16. Can there be a more patient-centred approach to determining clinically important effect sizes for randomized treatment trials? CD Naylor HA Llewellyn-Thomas, J Clin Epidemiol 1994 47 7 787 795 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90176- 7 7722592
17. Strategy of prevention: lessons from cardiovascular disease. G Rose, Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 282 6279 1847 1851 10.1136/bmj.282.6279.1847 6786649
18. Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample-size calculation. C van Walraven JL Mahon D Moher C Bohm A Laupacis, J Clin Epidemiol 1999 52 8 717 723 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00050-5 10465315
19. Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. ML Slevin L Stubbs HJ Plant P Wilson WM Gregory PJ Armes SM Downer, BMJ 1990 300 6737 1458 1460 10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1458 2379006