Methodological Compromise in the EVIDENCE trial: Why a Non-Significant Result Does Not Mean Equivalence
Fuente:
Zenodo
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866901493511094272 |
|---|---|
| author | Albiña-Palmarola, Pablo Henkes, Hans |
| author_facet | Albiña-Palmarola, Pablo Henkes, Hans |
| contents | <p>The EVIDENCE trial compared flow diversion with coiling ± stenting for unruptured wide-neck intracranial aneurysms and reported no significant difference in the primary outcome. This commentary argues that such a result, in an underpowered randomized trial that was terminated early and whose primary hypothesis and endpoint handling were modified during the study, cannot be interpreted as evidence of equivalence. Instead, the findings should be regarded as inconclusive and insufficient to support practice-changing claims about the comparative safety and efficacy of flow diversion versus coiling.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_17714558 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | eng |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Methodological Compromise in the EVIDENCE trial: Why a Non-Significant Result Does Not Mean Equivalence Albiña-Palmarola, Pablo Henkes, Hans Intracranial Aneurysm Flow Diversion Coiling Clinical Trials as Topic Endovascular Procedures <p>The EVIDENCE trial compared flow diversion with coiling ± stenting for unruptured wide-neck intracranial aneurysms and reported no significant difference in the primary outcome. This commentary argues that such a result, in an underpowered randomized trial that was terminated early and whose primary hypothesis and endpoint handling were modified during the study, cannot be interpreted as evidence of equivalence. Instead, the findings should be regarded as inconclusive and insufficient to support practice-changing claims about the comparative safety and efficacy of flow diversion versus coiling.</p> |
| title | Methodological Compromise in the EVIDENCE trial: Why a Non-Significant Result Does Not Mean Equivalence |
| topic | Intracranial Aneurysm Flow Diversion Coiling Clinical Trials as Topic Endovascular Procedures |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17714558 |