Reporting of Noninferiority and Equivalence Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement | Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S,  et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement.  JAMA. 1996;276(8):637-6398773637PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.  Lancet. 2001;357(9263):1191-119411323066PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D,  et al; CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials).  The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.  Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):663-69411304107PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF,  et al.  CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.  BMJ. 2010;340:c86920332511PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D.CONSORT Group.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.  PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e100025120352064PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ.CONSORT Group.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement.  JAMA. 2006;295(10):1152-116016522836PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D,  et al; CONSORT Group.  CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts.  Lancet. 2008;371(9609):281-28318221781PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D,  et al; CONSORT Group.  CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration.  PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e2018215107PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D.CONSORT Group.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.  BMJ. 2010;340:c33220332509PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wellek S. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence. Boca Raton, Fla: Chapman Hall/CRC; 2003
Durkalski VL, Palesch YY, Pineau BC, Vining DJ, Cotton PB. The virtual colonoscopy study: a large multicenter clinical trial designed to compare two diagnostic screening procedures.  Control Clin Trials. 2002;23(5):570-58312392872PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2004;350(20):2050-205915141043PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Chadwick D.Vigabatrin European Monotherapy Study Group.  Safety and efficacy of vigabatrin and carbamazepine in newly diagnosed epilepsy: a multicentre randomised double-blind study.  Lancet. 1999;354(9172):13-1910406359PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Van De Werf F, Adgey J, Ardissino D,  et al; Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic (ASSENT-2) Investigators.  Single-bolus tenecteplase compared with front-loaded alteplase in acute myocardial infarction: the ASSENT-2 double-blind randomised trial.  Lancet. 1999;354(9180):716-72210475182PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products.  Note for Guidelines on Evaluation of Medicinal Products Indicated for Treatment of Bacterial Infections. London, England: European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2004
Pocock SJ. The pros and cons of non-inferiority (equivalence) trials. In: Guess HA, Kleinman A, Kusek JW, Engel LW, eds. The Science of Placebo: Towards an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda. London, England: BMJ Books; 2000:236-248
Garattini S, Bertele’ V. Non-inferiority trials are unethical because they disregard patients' interests.  Lancet. 2007;370(9602):1875-187717959239PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Nunn AJ, Meredith SK, Spigelman MK, Ginsberg AM, Gillespie SH. The ethics of non-inferiority trials.  Lancet. 2008;371(9616):895- author reply 896-89718342678PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Gandjour A. The ethics of non-inferiority trials.  Lancet. 2008;371(9616):895- author reply 896-89718342676PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials.  JAMA. 1994;272(2):122-1248015121PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Greene WL, Concato J, Feinstein AR. Claims of equivalence in medical research: are they supported by the evidence?  Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(9):715-72210787365PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Suda KJ, Hurley AM, McKibbin T, Motl Moroney SE. Publication of noninferiority clinical trials: changes over a 20-year interval.  Pharmacotherapy. 2011;31(9):833-83921923583PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Lange S, Freitag G. Choice of delta: requirements and reality—results of a systematic review.  Biom J. 2005;47(1):12-27, 99-10716395993PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Eyawo O, Lee CW, Rachlis B, Mills EJ. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials for major prostaglandins: a systematic survey of the ophthalmology literature.  Trials. 2008;9:6919055743PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Chuang-Stein C, Beltangady M, Dunne M, Morrison B. The ethics of non-inferiority trials.  Lancet. 2008;371(9616):895-896, author reply 896-89718342677PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Krysan DJ, Kemper AR. Claims of equivalence in randomized controlled trials of the treatment of bacterial meningitis in children.  Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002;21(8):753-75812192164PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Dimick JB, Diener-West M, Lipsett PA. Negative results of randomized clinical trials published in the surgical literature: equivalency or error?  Arch Surg. 2001;136(7):796-80011448393PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Costa LJ, Xavier AC, del Giglio A. Negative results in cancer clinical trials—equivalence or poor accrual?  Control Clin Trials. 2004;25(5):525-53315465621PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Piaggio G, Pinol AP. Use of the equivalence approach in reproductive health clinical trials.  Stat Med. 2001;20(23):3571-357711746338PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wangge G, Klungel OH, Roes KCB, de Boer A, Hoes AW, Knol MJ. Interpretation and inference in noninferiority randomized controlled trials in drug research.  Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(3):420-42320668448PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wangge G, Klungel OH, Roes KC, de Boer A, Hoes AW, Knol MJ. Room for improvement in conducting and reporting non-inferiority randomized controlled trials on drugs: a systematic review.  PLoS One. 2010;5(10):e1355021048948PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Parienti JJ, Verdon R, Massari V. Methodological standards in non-inferiority AIDS trials: moving from adherence to compliance.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:4616987409PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Le Henanff A, Giraudeau B, Baron G, Ravaud P. Quality of reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials.  JAMA. 2006;295(10):1147-115116522835PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schiller P, Burchardi N, Niestroj M, Kieser M. Quality of reporting of clinical non-significance and equivalence randomized trials—update and extension.  Trials. 2012;13:214Google ScholarCrossref
Tanaka S, Kinjo Y, Kataoka Y, Yoshimura K, Teramukai S. Statistical issues and recommendations for noninferiority trials in oncology: a systematic review.  Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(7):1837-184722317762PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Guidance for Industry, Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials. FDA website. March 2010. Accessed November 19, 2012
Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use; Efficacy Working Party; Committee for Release for Consultation.  Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin.  Stat Med. 2006;25(10):1628-163816639773PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
European Medicines Agency (EMA).  Points to Consider on Switching Between Superiority and Non-inferiority. London, England: EMA; 2000
Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P.CONSORT Group.  Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration.  Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(4):295-30918283207PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ,  et al;  CONSORT Group; Pragmatic Trials in Healthcare (Practihc) Group.  Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement.  BMJ. 2008;337:a239019001484PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG.CONSORT Group.  Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials.  BMJ. 2012;345:e566122951546PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Eriksson BI, Dahl OE, Rosencher N,  et al;  RE-NOVATEStudy Group.  Dabigatran etexilate versus enoxaparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement: a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.  Lancet. 2007;370(9591):949-95617869635PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Tanenberg RJ, Irving GA, Risser RC,  et al.  Duloxetine, pregabalin, and duloxetine plus gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management in patients with inadequate pain response to gabapentin: an open-label, randomized, noninferiority comparison.  Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(7):615-62621719618PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hofheinz RD, Wenz F, Post S,  et al.  Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(6):579-58822503032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Sacco RL, Diener HC, Yusuf S,  et al; PRoFESS Study Group.  Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke.  N Engl J Med. 2008;359(12):1238-125118753638PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kaul S, Diamond GA, Weintraub WS. Trials and tribulations of non-inferiority: the ximelagatran experience.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(11):1986-199516325029PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kaul S, Diamond GA. Good enough: a primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials.  Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(1):62-6916818930PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T,  et al.  Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study.  Lancet. 1999;354(9192):1751-175610577635PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Gülmezoglu AM, Lumbiganon P, Landoulsi S,  et al.  Active management of the third stage of labour with and without controlled cord traction: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.  Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1721-172722398174PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rothmann M, Li N, Chen G, Chi GY, Temple R, Tsou HH. Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials in oncology.  Stat Med. 2003;22(2):239-26412520560PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Topol EJ, Moliterno DJ, Herrmann HC,  et al;  TARGET Investigators.  Comparison of two platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, tirofiban and abciximab, for the prevention of ischemic events with percutaneous coronary revascularization.  N Engl J Med. 2001;344(25):1888-189411419425PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Warriner IK, Wang D, Huong NT,  et al.  Can midlevel health-care providers administer early medical abortion as safely and effectively as doctors? a randomised controlled equivalence trial in Nepal.  Lancet. 2011;377(9772):1155-116121458058PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brown D, Volkers P, Day S. An introductory note to the CHMP guidelines.  Stat Med. 2007;26(1):230-23516900566PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods.  BMJ. 1996;313(7048):36-398664772PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Connolly S, Pogue J, Hart R,  et al; ACTIVE Writing Group of the ACTIVE Investigators.  Clopidogrel plus aspirin versus oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in the Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Events (ACTIVE-W): a randomised controlled trial.  Lancet. 2006;367(9526):1903-191216765759PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
D’Agostino RB Sr, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues—the encounters of academic consultants in statistics.  Stat Med. 2003;22(2):169-18612520555PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Durrleman S, Simon R. Planning and monitoring of equivalence studies.  Biometrics. 1990;46(2):329-3362194579PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Cairns JA, Wittes J, Wyse DG,  et al.  Monitoring the ACTIVE-W trial: some issues in monitoring a noninferiority trial.  Am Heart J. 2008;155(1):33-4118082486PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Willburger RE, Mysler E, Derbot J,  et al.  Lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily is comparable to indomethacin 50 mg three times daily for the treatment of acute flares of gout.  Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46(7):1126-113217478464PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Stone GW, McLaurin BT, Cox DA,  et al; ACUITY Investigators.  Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes.  N Engl J Med. 2006;355(21):2203-221617124018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ferguson JJ, Califf RM, Antman EM,  et al;  SYNERGY Trial Investigators.  Enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an intended early invasive strategy: primary results of the SYNERGY randomized trial.  JAMA. 2004;292(1):45-5415238590PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV,  et al.  Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2011;305(6):569-57521304082PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Lavender T, Furber C, Campbell M,  et al.  Effect on skin hydration of using baby wipes to clean the napkin area of newborn babies: assessor-blinded randomised controlled equivalence trial.  BMC Pediatr. 2012;12:5922656391PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rothman KJ. Placebo mania.  BMJ. 1996;313(7048):3-48664770PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Gunnell D, Saperia J, Ashby D. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and suicide in adults: meta-analysis of drug company data from placebo controlled, randomised controlled trials submitted to the MHRA's safety review.  BMJ. 2005;330(7488):38515718537PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Djulbegovic B, Clarke M. Scientific and ethical issues in equivalence trials.  JAMA. 2001;285(9):1206-120811231752PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Special Communication
December 26, 2012

Reporting of Noninferiority and Equivalence Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Statistika Consultoria, São Paulo, Brazil, and Divonne-les-Bains, France (Dr Piaggio); Medical Statistics Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom (Drs Piaggio, Elbourne and Pocock and Mr Evans); and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (Dr Altman).

JAMA. 2012;308(24):2594-2604. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.87802

The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement, which includes a checklist and a flow diagram, is a guideline developed to help authors improve the reporting of the findings from randomized controlled trials. It was updated most recently in 2010. Its primary focus is on individually randomized trials with 2 parallel groups that assess the possible superiority of one treatment compared with another. The CONSORT Statement has been extended to other trial designs such as cluster randomization, and recommendations for noninferiority and equivalence trials were made in 2006. In this article, we present an updated extension of the CONSORT checklist for reporting noninferiority and equivalence trials, based on the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement and the 2008 CONSORT Statement for the reporting of abstracts, and provide illustrative examples and explanations for those items that differ from the main 2010 CONSORT checklist. The intent is to improve reporting of noninferiority and equivalence trials, enabling readers to assess the reliability of their results and conclusions.