Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33344335›Full record

ReviewIndian dermatology online journal

Understanding Superiority, Noninferiority, and Equivalence for Clinical Trials.

Kamal Kishore, Rahul Mahajan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Indian dermatology online journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Tutorial on non inferiority trial in pharmaceutical research: an important and applied issue.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kamal KishoreDepartment of Biostatistics, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Rahul MahajanDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized control trialsare the gold standard for testing the efficacy of new interventions. Historically, superiority trials were methods of choice as reference (standard) interventions were not established for many disease conditions. However currently, reference interventions are available for most of adverse conditions. Despite this, many investigators are using superiority trials in comparison to more suitable noninferiority and equivalence trials. The application of noninferiority and equivalence trials is on the rise, but by and large, these trials are poorly understood, ill-conceived, inappropriately analyzed, and reported and misinterpreted.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsequivalencemethodologynoninferioritysuperiority

Identifiers

PMID33344335
PMCPMC7734976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.