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
. 2024 Oct;39(13):2522-2530.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08890-9. Epub 2024 Jul 1.

Non-Inferiority Trials: A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality and Reporting Standards

Anthony Sengul  1 , Edison Escobar  2 , John R Flores  3 , Michelle Kwok  4 , Shogo Kono  5 , Gordon Guyatt  6 , Cynthia A Jackevicius  7   8   9   10
Affiliations

Non-Inferiority Trials: A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality and Reporting Standards

Anthony Sengul et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2024 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Non-inferiority (NI) trials require unique trial design and methods, which pose challenges in their interpretation and applicability, risking introduction of inferior therapies in clinical practice. With the abundance of novel therapies, NI trials are increasing in publication. Prior studies found inadequate quality of reporting of NI studies, but were limited to certain specialties/journals, lacked NI margin evaluation, and did not examine temporal changes in quality. We conducted a systematic review without restriction to journal type, journal impact factor, disease state or intervention to evaluate the quality of NI trials, including a comprehensive risk of bias assessment and comparison of quality over time.

Methodology: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for NI trials published in English in 2014 and 2019. They were assessed for: study design and NI margin characteristics, primary results, and risk of bias for blinding, concealment, analysis method and missing outcome data.

Results: We included 823 studies. Between 2014 and 2019, a shift from publication in specialty to general journals (15% vs 28%, p < 0.001) and from pharmacological to non-pharmacological interventions (25% vs 38%, p = 0.025) was observed. The NI margin was specified in most trials for both years (94% vs 95%). Rationale for the NI margin increased (36% vs 57%, p < 0.001), but remained low, with clinical judgement the most common rationale (30% vs 23%), but more 2019 articles incorporating patient values (0.3% vs 21%, p < 0.001). Over 50% of studies were open-label for both years. Gold standard method of analyses (both per protocol + (modified) intention to treat) declined over time (43% vs 36%, p < 0.001).

Discussion: The methodological quality and reporting of NI trials remains inadequate although improving in some areas. Improved methods for NI margin justification, blinding, and analysis method are warranted to facilitate clinical decision-making.

Keywords: methodological quality; non-inferiority; reporting standards.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization with any financial interest and claim no relevant conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Noninferiority studies published in 2014 & 2019 and screened for inclusion and exclusion.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Proportion of trials with risk of bias category according to each criteria.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010;8:18. 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prasad V. Non-Inferiority Trials in Medicine: Practice Changing or a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(1):3-5. 10.1007/s11606-017-4191-y - PMC - PubMed
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJW, Altman DG. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. Extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 2012;308:24: 2594–2604. 10.1001/jama.2012.87802 - PubMed
    1. Rehal S, Morris TP, Fielding K, Carpenter JR, Phillips PPJ. Non-inferiority trials: Are they inferior? A systematic review of reporting in major medical journals. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012594. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016- 012594 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schiller P, Burchardi N, Niestroj M, Kieser M. Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials - update and extension. Trials 2012;13:214. 10.1186/1745-6215-13-214 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources