The article you requested is
Commentary: Another Point of View: Superiority, Noninferiority, and the Role of Active Comparators
J Clin Psychiatry 2011;72(10):1350-1352
Copyright 2011 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
To view this item, select one of the options below.
Purchase this PDF for $30
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($129) or print + online ($166 individual).
- Celebrate JCP's 75th Anniversary with a special online-only subscription price of $75.
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send an email
Despite substantial agreement with points made by Andrew C. Leon, PhD, in his article, I am not in complete agreement in a few areas. The definition of noninferiority proposed by Leon allows drugs somewhat less effective than placebo to be characterized as noninferior to placebo, and 2 active drugs may each be simultaneously noninferior to the other. Moreover, including a placebo arm in comparing 2 active drugs is of no use in deciding whether the study is well designed or not, since a significant difference between one of the active arms and the placebo may be due to chance or to a bias in the design. An alternative view of the situation is presented.