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 third frame on the right-hand side of Figure 5 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.
Accuracy on transitivity trials was 10% for the CARO group compared to 85% for the No-CARO group; on equivalence trials, accuracy was 10.
A second question was whether the pattern of various RTs to trained, symmetry, and equivalence trials demonstrated the same pattern as reported in previous studies, even with time restrictions.
The test consisted of 20 symmetry trials and 20 equivalence trials quasi-randomly mixed with 40 baseline trials summing to 80 trials.
Of the 180 trials, there were 36 baseline trials, 36 symmetry trials, 54 transitivity, and 54 equivalence trials.
The remaining two participants (P-33 and P-36) had inaccurate performances in both positive and negative control test trials, and their results in symmetry and equivalence trials were equally inaccurate.
Although no differences in InvRT or accuracy were found between the groups during testing, a two-way ANOVA showed that, on average, the variance in response speed for participants responding in accord with equivalence could be accounted for by a difference between baseline trials and equivalence trials (58 %) and a difference between baseline trials and transitivity trials plus equivalence trials (36.
Specifically, test blocks presented 12 training trials (A-B, B-C), 12 symmetry trials (B-A, C-B), six transitivity trials (A-C), and six equivalence trials (C-A).
The software also provided a summary of baseline or direct trained trials, symmetry trials, transitivity trials, and equivalence trials as well as the duration of the experiment.
The fourth phase, the test consisted of 90 trials: 15 trials each of the AC and BC trials (directly trained trials), interspersed in a mix with the symmetry trials (15 CA trials and 15 CB trials) and equivalence trials (15 AB trials and 15 BA trials).