Suppr超能文献

治疗等效性:谬误与证伪

Therapeutic equivalence: fallacies and falsification.

作者信息

Garrett Andrew D

机构信息

Quintiles (UK) Limited, Station House, Market Street, Bracknell RG12 1HX, UK.

出版信息

Stat Med. 2003 Mar 15;22(5):741-62. doi: 10.1002/sim.1360.

Abstract

The number of studies designed specifically to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence or alternatively non-inferiority of pharmaceutical treatments has increased dramatically in recent years, during which time awareness of the methodological issues has increased. Regulatory authorities have been quick to recognize the need for specific support and have either published or initiated the creation of relevant guidance. Common misconceptions prevail however regarding sample size estimation and the choice of the most appropriate patient population to analyse while other areas such as equivalence margin specification and covariate adjustment have been neglected. This paper challenges some of the regulatory advice and the interpretation that others have made of this guidance with the aim of stimulating further debate.

摘要

近年来,专门设计用于证明药物治疗的治疗等效性或非劣效性的研究数量急剧增加,在此期间,对方法学问题的认识也有所提高。监管机构很快认识到需要具体的支持,并已发布或开始制定相关指南。然而,在样本量估计以及选择最合适的患者群体进行分析方面,普遍存在常见的误解,而等效性界值设定和协变量调整等其他领域则被忽视。本文对一些监管建议以及其他人对该指南的解读提出质疑,旨在激发进一步的讨论。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验