ArticleJAMA oncology2020
The Need for Combined Assessment of Multiple Outcomes in Noninferiority Trials in Oncology.
Article in JAMA oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inferences About Drug Safety in Phase III Trials in Oncology: Examples From Advanced Prostate Cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Trial
- How can non-inferiority studies with mortality end points be ethically justified?Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- The REthinking Clinical Trials Program Retreat 2023: Creating Partnerships to Optimize Quality Cancer Care.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Composite endpoint to evaluate complement inhibition therapy in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.European journal of haematology · 2022Article
- Breast Cancer Screening Trials: Endpoints and Overdiagnosis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Noninferiority trials in oncology assess novel therapies with the potential for slightly worse recurrence or death outcomes (ie, the margin of noninferiority) than standard therapies. This poses a dilemma because, in the absence of potential health outcome advantages, these trials may not provide the treatment equipoise required for an ethical study. Any new treatment with the potential for slightly worse recurrence or death outcomes should have countervailing health outcome advantages, but these are rarely taken into account in the design of noninferiority trials. This article presents the argument that not only the potentially worse health outcomes but also the potential benefits of the novel therapy should be considered when designing, analyzing, and reporting noninferiority trials. Some approaches to study design and analysis that consider both primary and secondary end points are discussed, and reporting the joint distributions of end points for the novel and standard treatments is recommended.
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.