CONSORT criteria | Included in present evaluation | Category | Description of assessed variables |
---|---|---|---|
Specify that the trial is a non-inferiority or equivalence trial | Yes | R | Clearly identified as non-inferiority or equivalence trial in title, abstract or full paper |
Rationale for using a non-inferiority or equivalence design | Yes | R | Justification stated for using a non-inferiority or equivalence design |
Eligibility for participants with respect to trials that established efficacy of the reference treatment | No | - | - |
Interventions intended for each group with respect to trials that established efficacy of the reference treatment | No | - | - |
Specific objectives and hypothesis concerning non-inferiority or equivalence | Yes | R | Hypothesis stated clearly (text or formula) |
M | Margin defined | ||
Clearly defined primary and secondary outcome measures with respect to trials that established efficacy of the reference treatment | (Yes) | R | Primary outcome identified clearly (not evaluated whether outcome is identical to those in any trial that established efficacy of the reference treatment) |
Sample size calculation using a non-inferiority or equivalence criterion and specifying the margin with the rationale for its choice. When applicable, explanation of any interim analyses and stopping rules (and whether related to a non-inferiority or equivalence hypothesis) | Yes | R | Sample size calculation presented |
R | Elements for recalculation of sample size reported | ||
M | Margin considered | ||
R | Justification for margin stated | ||
R | Interim analyses planned | ||
Method used to generate random allocation sequence including details of any restriction | Yes | R | Method of randomisation reported |
R | Restriction method reported (blocking/stratification/minimisation) | ||
Method used to implement allocation concealment | No | - | - |
Who generated the allocation sequence and enrolled and assigned participants | No | - | - |
Whether participants, those administering the interventions and those assessing the outcome were blinded to group allocation | Yes | R | Method of blinding reported (any blinding; single blind, double blind, open or double dummy design) |
Statistical methods used to compare groups for primary outcome specifying whether a 1- or 2-sided confidence interval approach was used. Methods for additional analyses (subgroups, adjusted analyses) | Yes | R | Statistical methods used for comparison reported |
Participant flow through each state of the trial (diagram strongly recommended) | Yes | R | Diagram of flow of participants presented |
Dates defining the periods of recruitment and follow-up | Yes | R | Dates reported |
Baseline information for each group | Yes | R | Baseline information presented for each group |
Number of participants in each group included for each analysis and whether intention-to-treat (ITT) and/or alternative analyses were conducted | Yes | R | Number of participants reported - similar to 13 |
R | Analysis sets reported | ||
M | Results of ITT and per-protocol analysis presented | ||
For each outcome, a summary of results for each group and the estimated effect size and its precision (useful: figure showing confidence intervals and margins) | Yes | M | Results presented using a confidence interval |
R | Report of confidence level and 1- or 2-sided | ||
R | Report of P-value | ||
R | Figure presented | ||
Address multiplicity by reporting any other analyses performed | No | - | - |
All important adverse events or side effects in each group | Yes | R | Adverse events reported |
Interpretation of the results taking into account the non-inferiority or equivalence hypothesis, sources of potential bias or imprecision | Yes | I | Interpretation of results presented |
Interpretation correct (non-inferiority/equivalence/superiority/inferiority/inconclusive result/wrong/incomprehensible by means of presented results) | |||
Statement on expected advantage | |||
Generalisability (external validity) of the trial findings | No | - | - |
General interpretation of the results in the context of current evidence | No | - | - |