Objective

To assess the adequacy of reporting of non-inferiority trials alongside the consistency and utility of current recommended analyses and guidelines.

Design

Review of randomised clinical trials that used a non-inferiority design published between January 2010 and May 2015 in medical journals that had an impact factor >10 (JAMA Internal Medicine, Archives Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine).

Data sources

Ovid (MEDLINE).

Methods

We searched for non-inferiority trials and assessed the following: choice of non-inferiority margin and justification of margin; power and significance level for sample size; patient population used and how this was defined; any missing data methods used and assumptions declared and any sensitivity analyses used.

Results

A total of 168 trial publications were included. Most trials concluded non-inferiority (132; 79%). The non-inferiority margin was reported for 98% (164), but less than half reported any justification for the margin (77; 46%). While most chose two different analyses (91; 54%) the most common being intention-to-treat (ITT) or modified ITT and per-protocol, a large number of articles only chose to conduct and report one analysis (65; 39%), most commonly the ITT analysis. There was lack of clarity or inconsistency between the type I error rate and corresponding CIs for 73 (43%) articles. Missing data were rarely considered with (99; 59%) not declaring whether imputation techniques were used.

Conclusions

Reporting and conduct of non-inferiority trials is inconsistent and does not follow the recommendations in available statistical guidelines, which are not wholly consistent themselves. Authors should clearly describe the methods used and provide clear descriptions of and justifications for their design and primary analysis. Failure to do this risks misleading conclusions being drawn, with consequent effects on clinical practice.

Objectives

To examine reactions to the proposed improvements to standard Kaplan-Meier plots, the standard way to present time-to-event data, and to understand which (if any) facilitated better depiction of (1) the state of patients over time, and (2) uncertainty over time in the estimates of survival.

Design

A survey of stakeholders' opinions on the proposals.

Setting

A web-based survey, open to international participation, for those with an interest in visualisation of time-to-event data.

Participants

1174 people participated in the survey over a 6-week period. Participation was global (although primarily Europe and North America) and represented a wide range of researchers (primarily statisticians and clinicians).

Main outcome measures

Two outcome measures were of principal importance: (1) participants' opinions of each proposal compared with a 'standard' Kaplan-Meier plot; and (2) participants' overall ranking of the proposals (including the standard).

Results

Most proposals were more popular than the standard Kaplan-Meier plot. The most popular proposals in the two categories, respectively, were an extended table beneath the plot depicting the numbers at risk, censored and having experienced an event at periodic timepoints, and CIs around each Kaplan-Meier curve.

Conclusions

This study produced a high response number, reflecting the importance of graphics for time-to-event data. Those producing and publishing Kaplan-Meier plots-both authors and journals-should, as a starting point, consider using the combination of the two favoured proposals.