Literature DB >> 12617507

Proving non-inferiority or equivalence of two treatments with dichotomous endpoints using exact methods.

I S F Chan1.   

Abstract

Since the early work of RA Fisher, exact methods have been recognized as important tools in data analysis because they provide valid statistical inference even with small sample sizes, or with sparse or skewed data. With the recent advance of computational power and the availability of commercial software packages, exact methods have gained substantial popularity over the past two decades. However, most of these exact methods have been devoted to testing classical null hypotheses of no differences, and until recently little was known about exact methods dealing with non-inferiority or equivalence hypotheses. The presence of nuisance parameters in testing non-inferiority/equivalence hypotheses presents a special challenge for exact methods because of the intense computational requirement. In this paper, we review exact methods available for proving non-inferiority or equivalence of two treatments with a dichotomous endpoint. First, we present the general methodology for conducting exact tests for non-inferiority or equivalence; we then discuss several unconditional and conditional methods available for constructing hypothesis tests and confidence intervals based on three commonly used measures, namely, the difference, relative risk, and odds ratio of two independent proportions or rates. Finally, we illustrate with several examples the application of these exact methods in analysing and planning non-inferiority or equivalence trials.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12617507     DOI: 10.1191/0962280203sm314ra

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  6 in total

1.  Safety of aspiration abortion performed by nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants under a California legal waiver.

Authors:  Tracy A Weitz; Diana Taylor; Sheila Desai; Ushma D Upadhyay; Jeff Waldman; Molly F Battistelli; Eleanor A Drey
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Would tirofiban have been shown non-inferior to abciximab had the TENACITY trial not been terminated for financial reasons?

Authors:  Peter B Berger; Judson B Williams; Vic Hasselblad; Karen Chiswell; Karen S Pieper; Robert M Califf
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 2.279

3.  Analysis of feature intervisibility and cumulative visibility using GIS, Bayesian and spatial statistics: a study from the Mandara Mountains, northern Cameroon.

Authors:  David K Wright; Scott MacEachern; Jaeyong Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Estimating the Risk of Maternal Death at Admission: A Predictive Model from a 5-Year Case Reference Study in Northern Uganda.

Authors:  Gasthony Alobo; Cristina Reverzani; Laura Sarno; Barbara Giordani; Luigi Greco
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2022-03-17

5.  Rethinking statistical approaches to evaluating drug safety.

Authors:  Jen-pei Liu
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2007-12-31       Impact factor: 2.759

6.  Colon cancer controls versus population controls in case-control studies of occupational risk factors.

Authors:  Linda Kaerlev; Elsebeth Lynge; Svend Sabroe; Jorn Olsen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2004-04-22       Impact factor: 4.430

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.