NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Structured Abstract
Objective:
To provide guidance on how to manage the concepts of equivalence and noninferiority in the context of systematic reviews.
Methods:
This guidance was developed by a workgroup consisting of 13 individuals from seven Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, under the leadership of the ECRI EPC. Prior to developing any guidance, the lead EPC also performed two methods projects intended to assist the workgroup. The first was a review of 12 existing guidance documents pertaining to equivalence and noninferiority, all of which were intended for primary researchers. The second project assessed the methodology used for a random sample of 50 recent systematic reviews that concluded equivalence or noninferiority between two or more treatments. Based on the previous experience and knowledge of the workgroup members, as well as insights from the two methods projects, guidance was developed and underwent posting for public comment and peer review.
Results:
No guidance documents specifically addressing equivalence and noninferiority in the context of systematic review were identified. The workgroup developed a list of recommendations for four areas. First, how to assess the unique risk of bias for trials self-identifying as equivalence or noninferiority trials. Second, how to set Minimum Important Difference for a systematic review. Third, the analytic foundations for concluding equivalence or noninferiority in a systematic review. Fourth, language considerations when concluding equivalence or noninferiority in a systematic review.
Conclusions:
Systematic reviewers need to adopt a consistent and conceptually sound approach to interpreting, concluding, and expressing equivalence or noninferiority in the context of systematic reviews. This paper provides preliminary guidance in that endeavor.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Peer Reviewers
- Introduction
- Methods
- Guidance
- References
- Appendix A Example MIDs for Specific Clinical Topics
- Appendix B Methods Project 1: Existing Guidance for Individual Trials
- Appendix C Methods Project 2: Review of Recent Systematic Reviews That Concluded Equivalence or Noninferiority
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10063, Prepared by: EPC Workgroup: ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center, Plymouth Meeting, PA; Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center, Baltimore, MD; McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, OR; Research Triangle Institute Evidence-based Practice Center, Research Triangle Park, NC; University of Connecticut Evidence-based Practice Center, Hartford, CT; University of Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, MN; The University of Adelaide, Australia; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD
Suggested citation:
Treadwell J, Uhl S, Tipton K, Singh S, Santaguida L, Sun X, Berkman N, Viswanathan M, Coleman C, Shamliyan T, Wang S, Ramakrishnan R, Elshaug A. Assessing Equivalence and Noninferiority. Methods Research Report. (Prepared by the EPC Workgroup under Contract No. 290-2007-10063.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC045-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2012. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
This report is based on research conducted by the EPC Workgroup under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10063). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
The investigators have no relevant financial interests in the report. The investigators have no employment, consultancies, honoraria, or stock ownership or options, or royalties from any organization or entity with a financial interest or financial conflict with the subject matter discussed in the report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Assessing equivalence and noninferiority.[J Clin Epidemiol. 2012]Assessing equivalence and noninferiority.Treadwell JR, Uhl S, Tipton K, Shamliyan T, Viswanathan M, Berkman ND, Sun X, Coleman CI, Elshaug AG, Singh S, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Nov; 65(11):1144-9. Epub 2012 Jun 23.
- Twelve recommendations for integrating existing systematic reviews into new reviews: EPC guidance.[J Clin Epidemiol. 2016]Twelve recommendations for integrating existing systematic reviews into new reviews: EPC guidance.Robinson KA, Chou R, Berkman ND, Newberry SJ, Fu R, Hartling L, Dryden D, Butler M, Foisy M, Anderson J, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb; 70:38-44. Epub 2015 Aug 7.
- Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report.[Value Health. 2009]Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report.Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Cella D, Basch E, ISPOR ePRO Task Force. Value Health. 2009 Jun; 12(4):419-29. Epub 2008 Nov 11.
- Review Updating Systematic Reviews[ 2007]Review Updating Systematic ReviewsShojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Garritty C, Rader T, Moher D. 2007 Sep
- Review Integration of Existing Systematic Reviews[ 2014]Review Integration of Existing Systematic ReviewsRobinson KA, Whitlock EP, O'Neil ME, Anderson JK, Hartling L, Dryden DM, Butler M, Newberry SJ, McPheeters M, Berkman ND, et al. 2014 Jun
- Assessing Equivalence and NoninferiorityAssessing Equivalence and Noninferiority
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...