Download PDF
Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2007; 132: e53-e56
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-959043
Statistik | Statistics

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Äquivalenzstudien und Nicht-Unterlegenheitsstudien

- Artikel Nr. 20 der Statistik-Serie in der DMW -Equivalence and non-inferiority trialsS. Lange1 , R. Bender1 , A. Ziegler2
  • 1Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Köln
  • 2Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Universität zu Lübeck
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 May 2007 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Schlüsselwörter

Äquivalenz - Nicht-Unterlegenheit - Klinisch relevante Differenz - Konfidenzintervall

Key words

Equivalence - Non-inferiority - Clinically relevant difference - Confidence interval

Literatur

  • 1 Altman D G, Bland J M. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  BMJ. 1995;  311 485
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bender R, Lange S. Was ist der p-Wert?.  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2007;  132 e15-e16
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Blackwelder W C. „Proving the null hypothesis” in clinical trials.  Control Clin Trials. 1982;  3 345-353
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 CPMP . Biostatistical methodology in clinical trials in applications for marketing authorizations for medicinal products. CPMP Working Party on Efficacy of Medicinal Products Note for Guidance III/3630/92-EN.  Stat Med. 1995;  14 1659-1682
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 CPMP .Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. CPMP/EWP/2158/99 2005. http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/215899en.pdf (letzter Zugriff am 25.9.2005) 2005
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 CPMP .Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. CPMP/EWP/482/99 2000. http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/048299en.pdf (letzter Zugriff am 25.9.2005) 2005
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Garbe E, Röhmel J, Gundert-Remy U. Clinical and statistical issues in therapeutic equivalence trials.  Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;  45 1-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Hampton J R. Mega-trials and equivalence trials: experience from the INJECT study.  Eur Heart J. 1996;  17 (Suppl E) 28-34
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hampton J R. Alternatives to mega-trials in cardiovascular disease.  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 1997;  10 759-765
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Hartung J, Cottrell J E, Giffen J P. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Anesthesiology. 1983;  58 298-300
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Henry D, Hill S. Comparing treatments: Comparison should be against active treatments rather than placebos.  BMJ. 1995;  310 1279
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline . Statistical principles for clinical trials (E9).  Stat Med. 1999;  18 1905-1942
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline .Choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials (E10). http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ich/036496en.pdf (letzter Zugriff am 25.9.2005) 2000
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 International Joint Efficacy Comparison of Thrombolytics . Randomised, double-blind comparison of reteplase double-bolus administration with streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction (INJECT): trial to investigate equivalence.  Lancet. 1995;  346 329-335
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis J A, Ebbutt A F. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods.  BMJ. 1996;  313 36-39
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Lange S, Bender R. Was ist ein Signifikanztest?.  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2007;  132 e19-e21
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lange S, Windeler J. Das Konzept der therapeutischen Äquivalenz.  Med Klin. 1997;  92 215-220
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Makuch R, Johnson M. Issues in planning and interpreting active control equivalence studies.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;  42 503-511
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Makuch R, Pledger G, Hall D B, Johnson M F, Herson J, Hsu J -P. Active Control Equivalence Studies. In: Peace KE; Hrsg. Statistical issues in drug research and development New York: Marcel Dekker, 1990: 225-262
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Modell W, Houde R W. Factors influencing clinical evaluation of drugs. With special reference to the double-blind technique.  JAMA. 1958;  167 2190-2199
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Senn S J. Inherent difficulties with active control equivalence studies.  Stat Med. 1993;  12 2367-2375
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Wellek S. Planung und statistische Auswertung von Äquivalenzstudien im Rahmen der klassischen Theorie des Hypothesentestens. In: Michaelis J, Hommel G, Wellek S; Hrsg. Europäische Perspektiven der Medizinischen Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie München: MMV, Medizin-Verlag 1993: 143-147
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Wellek S. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC 2003
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Windeler J, Trampisch H J. Empfehlung zur Durchführung von Studien zur therapeutischen Äquivalenz.  Inform Biom Epidem Med Biol. 1995;  26 350-355
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 World Medical Association .Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Revision of the 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm (letzter Zugriff am 25.9.2005) 2000
    Search in Google Scholar

Privatdozent Dr. rer. biol. hum. Ralf Bender

Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG)

Dillenburger Straße 27

51105 Köln

Email: ralf.bender@iqwig.de