equivalence trial


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia.

equivalence trial

A clinical trial with the primary objective of showing that the response to two or more treatments differs by an amount that is clinically insignificant, which is usually demonstrated by showing that the true treatment difference lies between a lower and an upper equivalence margin of clinically acceptable differences.

equivalence trial

Clinical trials A study–eg, COBALT, intended to circumvent the ethical dilemmas of comparing a new therapy to a placebo which is known to be less effective than a proven therapy, by running the new agent against a standard therapy. See Clinical trial, COBALT.

equivalence trial

A randomized clinical trial in which two distinct agents are compared head-to-head against each other, and sometimes, but not always, against an inert agent (a placebo) as well. If two agents work equally well, the treatment that is less expensive, better tolerated, or more easily administered, may be preferable to use.

equivalence trial

A randomized clinical trial in which two distinct agents are compared with each other and sometimes with an inert agent (a placebo) as well. If two agents work equally well, the less expensive, better tolerated, or more easily administered one may be preferred.
See also: trial
References in periodicals archive ?
Most equivalence trials are bioequivalence trials that aim to compare a generic drug with the original commercial drug, to show that they have the "same" pharmacokinetic PK) profile, expressed by the most common PK variables: Cmax, Cmin and AUC (area under the curve).
The bottom panel of Figure 4 displays the percentage of correct responses involving the D stimuli on symmetry (D-A) and emergent equivalence trials (D-C, D-B) for each participant.
Reaction time to comparison stimuli during equivalence trials are found to be slower than reaction time to comparison stimuli during baseline trials (Arntzen & Holth, 1997; Bentall, Dickens, & Fox, 1993; Holth & Arntzen, 1998; Spencer & Chase, 1996), and that reaction time to comparison stimuli tends to decrease over the course of testing (Arntzen & Holth, 1997; Bentall et al.
When CARO was available, seven (70%) participants consistently selected CARO on all equivalence trials and eight (80%) selected CARO on all transitivity trials.
Within a given block, the 18 baseline, 18 symmetry, and 18 equivalence trials were randomly presented (i.
Imam (2001) provided data from two participants showing that a speed contingency reduces response accuracy in transitivity and equivalence trials compared with baseline trials.
Analysis of the reaction time data from the participants in the current study revealed a pattern of increased reaction time between the last five and the first five test trials of each trial type, with a stepwise increase in reaction time from directly trained trials, through symmetry, and to the stimulus equivalence trials.
Participant 5 required a considerable number of sessions in baseline and equivalence testing, and Participant 7 displayed high accuracy scores on all equivalence trials despite differential baseline acquisition), these findings generally support our predictions.
Second, in each test block, the proportions of equivalence trials and baseline trials were 25% and 75%, respectively.
In fact, all 4 subjects made a press response on virtually all symmetry trials, whereas responding on equivalence trials was more varied.
It is unclear whether mixing the symmetry and equivalence trials would have affected performance.
The equivalence criterion similarly was at least 17 of 18 correct, for symmetry or equivalence trials separately.