ArticleTrials2017
The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials.
Article in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Zoledronate Versus Ibandronate Comparative Evaluation: A Randomized Phase III, Open-Label, Multicenter, Parallel Group Clinical Trial to Evaluate and Compare the Efficacy, Safety Profile and Tolerability of Oral Ibandronate Versus Intravenous Zoledronate in the Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients With Bone Metastases
A Randomized, Single-Blind Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of Dosing Mesalazine 800 mg Tablets (Asacol®) at 2.4 g Once Daily Versus Divided Doses 3 Times Daily for 12 Months in Maintenance of Remission of Ulcerative Colitis.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of guided self-help versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID).Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Applying the Estimands Framework to Non-Inferiority Trials: Guidance on Choice of Hypothetical Estimands for Non-Adherence and Comparison of Estimation Methods.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn a non-inferiority (NI) trial, analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle is anti-conservative, so current guidelines recommend analysing on a per-protocol (PP) population in addition. However, PP analysis relies on the often implausible assumption of no confounders. Randomisation-based efficacy estimators (RBEEs) allow for treatment non-adherence while maintaining a comparison of randomised groups. Fischer et al. have developed an approach for estimating RBEEs in randomised trials with two active treatments, a common feature of NI trials. The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the use of RBEEs in NI trials using this approach, and to appraise the feasibility of these estimators as the primary analysis in NI trials.
methodsTwo NI trials were used. One comparing two different dosing regimens for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis (CODA), and the other comparing an orally administered treatment to an intravenously administered treatment in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZICE). Variables that predicted adherence in each of the trial arms, and were also independent of outcome, were sought in each of the studies. Structural mean models (SMMs) were fitted that conditioned on these variables, and the point estimates and confidence intervals compared to that found in the corresponding ITT and PP analyses.
resultsIn the CODA study, no variables were found that differentially predicted treatment adherence while remaining independent of outcome. The SMM, using standard methodology, moved the point estimate closer to 0 (no difference between arms) compared to the ITT and PP analyses, but the confidence interval was still within the NI margin, indicating that the conclusions drawn would remain the same. In the ZICE study, cognitive functioning as measured by the corresponding domain of the QLQ-C30, and use of chemotherapy at baseline were both differentially associated with adherence while remaining independent of outcome. However, while the SMM again moved the point estimate closer to 0, the confidence interval was wide, overlapping with any NI margin that could be justified.
conclusionDeriving RBEEs in NI trials with two active treatments can provide a randomisation-respecting estimate of treatment efficacy that accounts for treatment adherence, is straightforward to implement, but requires thorough planning during the design stage of the study to ensure that strong baseline predictors of treatment are captured. Extension of the approach to handle nonlinear outcome variables is also required.
trial registrationThe CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656 . Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820 . Registered on 16 May 2006.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.