Literature DB >> 20183434

Noninferiority trial design and analysis with an ordered three-level categorical endpoint.

Erica Brittain1, Zonghui Hu.   

Abstract

This paper extends standard methodology for noninferiority trial design from a binary endpoint to an ordered three-level endpoint, such as "success," "intermediate," and "failure." A metric that summarizes outcome on this endpoint is proposed, and the corresponding sample size requirements are presented. This ordered endpoint can be collapsed into two different binary endpoints, respectively lumping "intermediate" outcomes with "success" or with "failure." We describe how the ordered three-level endpoint compares with these two binary endpoints with respect to the noninferiority margin and sample size requirements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20183434      PMCID: PMC2893351          DOI: 10.1080/10543400902964142

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biopharm Stat        ISSN: 1054-3406            Impact factor:   1.051


  9 in total

1.  Choosing an equivalence limit for noninferiority or equivalence studies.

Authors:  Brian L Wiens
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2002-02

2.  Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues - the encounters of academic consultants in statistics.

Authors:  Ralph B D'Agostino; Joseph M Massaro; Lisa M Sullivan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Some fundamental issues with non-inferiority testing in active controlled trials.

Authors:  H M James Hung; Sue-Jane Wang; Yi Tsong; John Lawrence; Robert T O'Neil
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Once-daily oral gatifloxacin vs three-times-daily co-amoxiclav in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Authors:  H Lode; P Magyar; J F Muir; U Loos; K Kleutgens
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 8.067

5.  Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk.

Authors:  C P Farrington; G Manning
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Comparison of tests and sample size formulae for proving therapeutic equivalence based on the difference of binomial probabilities.

Authors:  P Roebruck; A Kühn
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Sample size requirements for evaluating a conservative therapy.

Authors:  R Makuch; R Simon
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1978-07

8.  "Proving the null hypothesis" in clinical trials.

Authors:  W C Blackwelder
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1982-12

9.  Randomized, double-blind trial of cefonicid and nafcillin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections.

Authors:  J S Daly; M G Worthington; R J Andrews; R B Brown; R Schwartz; D J Sexton
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 5.191

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.