Non‐inferiority trials: design concepts and issues – the encounters of academic consultants in statistics

By Ralph B. D’Agostino, J. Massaro, Lisa Sullivan. Statistics in Medicine, 2002

693 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2360fabc4e3c679eaf02a48bc48466bab9115c74

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Douglas G. Altman
2. Diana Elbourne
3. Stuart J. Pocock
4. David Moher
5. G. Piaggio
6. K. F. Schulz
7. S. Evans
8. Gunther Eysenbach

In Statistics and Probability

1. Douglas G. Altman
2. David Moher
3. Stuart J. Pocock
4. Diana Elbourne
5. K. F. Schulz
6. G. Piaggio
7. S. Evans
8. Gunther Eysenbach

Citations in the corpus

• Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. (2006, background): “Noninferiority and equivalence trials present particular difficulties in design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation.(19) Hypotheses.”
• Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. (2006, background): “In noninferiority trials it is therefore often more appropriate to base stopping rules on safety outcomes and superiority hypotheses.(56) Stopping rules for efficacy in noninferiority trials may be asymmetric,(57) ie, may favor stopping early if the new treatment is appearing worse than the standard”
• Intention-to-treat concept: A review (2011, neutral): “[28]”