F A McAlister1, D L Sackett. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify methodological features that affect the validity of conclusions drawn from active-control equivalence trials and to apply these criteria to recently published trials comparing antihypertensive agents from different classes. METHODS: Standard methodological criteria for randomized clinical trials and six additional methodological features that affect the validity of active-control equivalence trials were applied to four recently published large trials that compared different antihypertensive classes and that concluded that their results showed equivalence. RESULTS: All four of these trials fulfilled standard criteria for randomized trials. However, none fulfilled all of the six additional methodological criteria that affect the validity of active-control equivalence trials, one fulfilled five criteria, two fulfilled two criteria, and one failed to fulfill any of the criteria. CONCLUSION: Standard methodological criteria for evaluating superiority trials are inadequate for the interpretation of active-control equivalence trials. The methodological criteria outlined in this article for judging the validity of active-control equivalence trials are not specific to antihypertensive trials and may be applied to trials that test a wide variety of interventions.
PURPOSE: To identify methodological features that affect the validity of conclusions drawn from active-control equivalence trials and to apply these criteria to recently published trials comparing antihypertensive agents from different classes. METHODS: Standard methodological criteria for randomized clinical trials and six additional methodological features that affect the validity of active-control equivalence trials were applied to four recently published large trials that compared different antihypertensive classes and that concluded that their results showed equivalence. RESULTS: All four of these trials fulfilled standard criteria for randomized trials. However, none fulfilled all of the six additional methodological criteria that affect the validity of active-control equivalence trials, one fulfilled five criteria, two fulfilled two criteria, and one failed to fulfill any of the criteria. CONCLUSION: Standard methodological criteria for evaluating superiority trials are inadequate for the interpretation of active-control equivalence trials. The methodological criteria outlined in this article for judging the validity of active-control equivalence trials are not specific to antihypertensive trials and may be applied to trials that test a wide variety of interventions.
Authors: N A Khan; Finlay A McAlister; Simon W Rabkin; Raj Padwal; Ross D Feldman; Norman Rc Campbell; Lawrence A Leiter; Richard Z Lewanczuk; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Michael D Hill; Malcolm Arnold; Gordon Moe; Tavis S Campbell; Carol Herbert; Alain Milot; James A Stone; Ellen Burgess; B Hemmelgarn; Charlotte Jones; Pierre Larochelle; Richard I Ogilvie; Robyn Houlden; Robert J Herman; Pavel Hamet; George Fodor; George Carruthers; Bruce Culleton; Jacques Dechamplain; George Pylypchuk; Alexander G Logan; Norm Gledhill; Robert Petrella; Sheldon Tobe; Rhian M Touyz Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Nadia A Khan; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Raj Padwal; Pierre Larochelle; Jeff L Mahon; Richard Z Lewanczuk; Finlay A McAlister; Simon W Rabkin; Michael D Hill; Ross D Feldman; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Norman R C Campbell; Alexander G Logan; Malcolm Arnold; Gordon Moe; Tavis S Campbell; Alain Milot; James A Stone; Charlotte Jones; Lawrence A Leiter; Richard I Ogilvie; Robert J Herman; Pavel Hamet; George Fodor; George Carruthers; Bruce Culleton; Kevin D Burns; Marcel Ruzicka; Jacques deChamplain; George Pylypchuk; Norm Gledhill; Robert Petrella; Jean-Martin Boulanger; Luc Trudeau; Robert A Hegele; Vincent Woo; Phil McFarlane; Rhian M Touyz; Sheldon W Tobe Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Erik Hedman; Gerhard Andersson; Brjánn Ljótsson; Erik Andersson; Christian Rück; Ewa Mörtberg; Nils Lindefors Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-03-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Liza Dawson; Deborah A Zarin; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Lawrence M Friedman; Bimal Chaudhari; Steven N Goodman Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 11.069