Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2017 | Review | Ausgabe 1/2017 Open Access

Trials 1/2017

Methods of defining the non-inferiority margin in randomized, double-blind controlled trials: a systematic review

Zeitschrift:
Trials > Ausgabe 1/2017
Autoren:
Turki A. Althunian, Anthonius de Boer, Olaf H. Klungel, Widya N. Insani, Rolf H. H. Groenwold
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s13063-017-1859-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Background

There is no consensus on the preferred method for defining the non-inferiority margin in non-inferiority trials, and previous studies showed that the rationale for its choice is often not reported. This study investigated how the non-inferiority margin is defined in the published literature, and whether its reporting has changed over time.

Methods

A systematic PubMed search was conducted for all published randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trials from January 1, 1966, to February 6, 2015. The primary outcome was the number of margins that were defined by methods other than the historical evidence of the active comparator. This was evaluated for a time trend. We also assessed the under-reporting of the methods of defining the margin as a secondary outcome, and whether this changed over time. Both outcomes were analyzed using a Poisson log-linear model. Predictors for better reporting of the methods, and the use of the fixed-margin method (one of the historical evidence methods) were also analyzed using logistic regression.

Results

Two hundred seventy-three articles were included, which account for 273 non-inferiority margins. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of margins that were defined by other methods compared to those defined based on the historical evidence (ratio 2.17, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.82, p = 0.11), and this did not change over time. The number of margins for which methods were unreported was similar to those with reported methods (ratio 1.35, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.43, p = 0.31), with no change over time. The method of defining the margin was less often reported in journals with low-impact factors compared to journals with high-impact factors (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.37, p < 0.0001). The publication of the FDA draft guidance in 2010 was associated with increased reporting of the fixed-margin method (after versus before 2010) (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.12 to 13.35, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Non-inferiority margins are not commonly defined based on the historical evidence of the active comparator, and they are poorly reported. Authors, reviewers, and editors need to take notice of reporting this critical information to allow for better judgment of non-inferiority trials.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1: PRISMA 2009 Checklist (DOC 64 kb)
13063_2017_1859_MOESM1_ESM.doc
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe