| Title |
Understanding Equivalence and Noninferiority Testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-010-1513-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Esteban Walker, Amy S. Nowacki |
| Abstract |
Increasingly, the goal of many studies is to determine if new therapies have equivalent or noninferior efficacies to the ones currently in use. These studies are called equivalence/noninferiority studies, and the statistical methods for their analysis require only simple modifications to the traditional hypotheses testing framework. Nevertheless, important and subtle issues arise with the application of such methods. This article describes the concepts and statistical methods involved in testing equivalence/noninferiority. The aim is to enable the clinician to understand and critically assess the growing number of articles utilizing such methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 17 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 8% |
| Tunisia | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 21 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 52% |
| Scientists | 19 | 37% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 873 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 1% |
| Sweden | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Russia | 2 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 840 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 187 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 154 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 103 | 12% |
| Other | 74 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 62 | 7% |
| Other | 175 | 20% |
| Unknown | 118 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 220 | 25% |
| Psychology | 84 | 10% |
| Engineering | 71 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 65 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 34 | 4% |
| Other | 226 | 26% |
| Unknown | 173 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#588,955
of 25,579,912 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#466
of 8,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,544
of 106,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#7
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,579,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 106,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.