Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36104512›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of cancer2022

Interpreting the results of noninferiority trials-a review.

Jack Cuzick, Peter Sasieni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Ablative Technologies for Thyroid Nodules: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Addressing Mental Health Symptoms Among COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: A Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback Pilot Study.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2024
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Beyond theJCO precision oncology · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Jack CuzickCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. j.cuzick@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7420-7512
Peter SasieniSchool of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1509-8744

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Noninferiority trials are becoming increasing common, but are often poorly reported and misunderstood. A better understanding of the new components of a noninferiority trial and their interpretation is needed. Noninferiority trials are an extension of conventional superiority trials, which provide a basis for determining if a new treatment, which may have advantages other than efficacy, has sufficient efficacy to be useful in certain situations. A key feature is the need to specify a clinical noninferiority margin above which the lower boundary of the confidence interval for the difference between the new treatment and the conventional treatment must lie. In most cases a nontreated control arm is not included, and when the efficacy of the new treatment is less than that of the standard treatment, determining its efficacy versus no treatment can be a major challenge. Treatments meeting a clinical noninferiority requirement can be statistically significantly superior to standard treatment, of similar efficacy (i.e., no significant difference), or even significantly inferior in a conventional analysis. Noninferiority comparisons are an important addition to the reporting of clinical trials, but require prior consideration of several factors that conventional superiority analyses do not address.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumans

Identifiers

PMID36104512
PMCPMC9643416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.