Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 Jun;33(5):201-204.
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000978.

Do Equivalence Trials Display Superiority Over the Traditional Comparative Study Methods in Orthopedic Surgery?

Andrew J Hughes  1 , Hugo C Temperley  2 , Daniel P Ahern  1   2 , Jake McDonnell  3 , Joseph S Butler  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Do Equivalence Trials Display Superiority Over the Traditional Comparative Study Methods in Orthopedic Surgery?

Andrew J Hughes et al. Clin Spine Surg. 2020 Jun.

Abstract

Superiority and equivalence trials are 2 commonly encountered methods of designing randomized controlled trials. Traditionally, the goal of a randomized controlled trial is to show superiority. However, in more recent times, there has been a tendency to show equivalence in clinical randomized trials. These differing conclusions at first glance seem to be drawn on the basis of the results of the respective trials. However, to accurately reach these conclusions, there are stark contrasts in the methodologies of these different study types. This article provides a brief overview of superiority and equivalence trials, highlights the differences between the 2, and their relevance to orthopedic surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Akobeng AK. Understanding randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90:840–844.
    1. Christensen E. Methodology of superiority vs. equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials. J Hepatol. 2007;46:947–954.
    1. Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66:150–154.
    1. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, et al. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ. 1996;313:36–39.
    1. Dorey FJ. In brief: statistics in brief: confidence intervals: what is the real result in the target population? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3137–3138.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources