How to demonstrate similarity by using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research

Radiology

Volumn 267, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 328-338

  Ahn, Soyeon ^a   Park, Seong Ho ^c   Lee, Kyoung Ho ^b  

^a Medical Research Collaborating Center   (South Korea)

^b Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

^c University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EQUIVALENCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONINFERIORITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; RADIOLOGY; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84876892984     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120725     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Costa LJ, Xavier AC, del Giglio A. Negative results in cancer clinical trials: equivalence or poor accruaľ Control Clin Trials 2004;25(5):525-533.
2. Dimick JB, Diener-West M, Lipsett PA. Negative results of randomized clinical trials published in the surgical literature: equivalency or erroř Arch Surg 2001;136(7):796-800.
3. Krysan DJ, Kemper AR. Claims of equivalence in randomized controlled trials of the treatment of bacterial meningitis in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2002;21(8):753-758.
4. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ; CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006;295(10):1152-1160.
5. Greene WL, Concato J, Feinstein AR. Claims of equivalence in medical research: are they supported by the evidence? Ann Intern Med 2000;132(9):715-722.
6. Sackett DL. Superiority trials, noninferiority trials, and prisoners of the 2-sided null hypothesis. ACP J Club 2004;140(2):A11.
7. Lange S, Freitag G. Choice of delta: requirements and reality -results of a systematic review. Biom J 2005;47(1):12-27; discussion 99-107.
8. ICH Steering Committee. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials E10. ICH Web site. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public-Web-Site/ICH-Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/ E10/Step4/E10-Guideline. pdf. Accessed March 14, 2012.
9. ICH Steering Committee. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials E9. ICH Web site. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/ Public-Web-Site/ICH-Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E9/Step4/E9-Guideline.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2012.
10. EMEA. CHMP Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. European Medicines Agency Web site. http://www.ema.europa. eu/docs/en-GB/ document-library/Scientific-guideline/2009/09/WC500003636.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2012.
11. FDA. Guidance for industry: non-inferiority clinical trials. FDA Web site. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM202140.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2012.
12. Welleck S. Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence and noninferiority. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, Fla: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2010; 1-368.
13. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012;366(17):1596-1605.
14. af Geijerstam JL, Oredsson S, Britton M; OCTOPUS Study Investigators. Medical outcome after immediate computed tomography or admission for observation in patients with mild head injury: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2006;333(7566):465.
15. Lee SJ, Park SH, Kim AY, et al. A prospective comparison of standard-dose CT enterography and 50% reduced-dose CT enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(1):50-57.
16. Hausleiter J, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M, et al. Image quality and radiation exposure with a low tube voltage protocol for coronary CT angiography results of the PROTECTION II Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3(11):1113- 1123.
17. MERCURY Study Group. Extramural depth of tumor invasion at thin-section MR in patients with rectal cancer: results of the MERCURY study. Radiology 2007;243(1):132-139.
18. Park SH. Degree of error of thin-section MR in measuring extramural depth of tumor invasion in patients with rectal cancer. Radiology 2008;246(2):647; author reply 647-648.
19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307-310.
20. Le Henanff A, Giraudeau B, Baron G, Ravaud P. Quality of reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. JAMA 2006;295(10):1147-1151.
21. Wangge G, Klungel OH, Roes KC, de Boer A, Hoes AW, Knol MJ. Room for improvement in conducting and reporting noninferiority randomized controlled trials on drugs: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2010;5(10):e13550.
22. Kerrou K, Pitre S, Coutant C, et al. The usefulness of a preoperative compact im-ager, a hand-held gamma-camera for breast cancer sentinel node biopsy: final results of a prospective double-blind, clinical study. J Nucl Med 2011;52(9):1346-1353.
23. Schaefer PJ, Boudghene FP, Brambs HJ, et al. Abdominal and iliac arterial stenoses: comparative double-blinded randomized study of diagnostic accuracy of 3D MR angiography with gadodiamide or gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 2006;238(3):827-840.
24. Vincken PWJ, ter Braak APM, van Erkel AR, et al. MR imaging: effectiveness and costs at triage of patients with nonacute knee symptoms. Radiology 2007;242(1):85-93.
25. Anderson DR, Kahn SR, Rodger MA, et al. Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography vs ventilation-perfusion lung scanning in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007;298(23):2743-2753.
26. Righini M, Le Gal G, Aujesky D, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008;371(9621):1343-1352.
27. Eng J. Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied? Radiology 2003;227(2):309-313.
28. Julious SA. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton, Fla: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2009; 236-242.
29. Lu Y, Bean JA. On the sample size for one-sided equivalence of sensitivities based upon McNemar's test. Stat Med 1995;14(16):1831-1839.
30. Nam JM. Establishing equivalence of two treatments and sample size requirements in matched-pairs design. Biometrics 1997;53(4):1422-1430.
31. Tango T. Equivalence test and confidence interval for the difference in proportions for the paired-sample design. Stat Med 1998;17(8):891-908.
32. Liu JP, Hsueh HM, Hsieh E, Chen JJ. Tests for equivalence or non-inferiority for paired binary data. Stat Med 2002;21(2):231-245.
33. Durkalski VL, Palesch YY, Pineau BC, Vining DJ, Cotton PB. The virtual colonoscopy study: a large multicenter clinical trial designed to compare two diagnostic screening procedures. Control Clin Trials 2002;23(5):570-583.
34. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 2006; 239(2):341-350.
35. Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 2003;229(1):3-8.
36. Park SH, Goo JM, Jo CH. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: practical review for radiologists. Korean J Radiol 2004;5(1):11-18.
37. Jin H, Lu Y. A non-inferiority test of areas under two parametric ROC curves. Contemp Clin Trials 2009;30(4):375-379.
38. Liu JP, Ma MC, Wu CY, Tai JY. Tests of equivalence and non-inferiority for diagnostic accuracy based on the paired areas under ROC curves. Stat Med 2006;25(7):1219-1238.
39. Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. New York, NY: Wiley, 2002; 165-221.