方法对比

	自适应临床试验设计	等效性/非劣效性试验	顺序/分组顺序试验设计
领域	实验设计	实验设计	实验设计
方法族	Hypothesis test	Hypothesis test	Hypothesis test
起源年份	1994	1987	1979
提出者	Bauer & Köhne	Schuirmann, D.J. / EMA regulatory framework	O'Brien & Fleming; Pocock; Lan & DeMets
类型	Adaptive hypothesis test with interim analyses	Parametric equivalence / non-inferiority test	Adaptive stopping trial design
开创性文献	Bauer, P. & Köhne, K. (1994). Evaluation of Experiments with Adaptive Interim Analyses. Biometrics, 50(4), 1029–1041.	Schuirmann, D.J. (1987). A Comparison of the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure and the Power Approach. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 15(6), 657–680.	O'Brien, P.C. & Fleming, T.R. (1979). A Multiple Testing Procedure for Clinical Trials. Biometrics, 35(3), 549–556.
别名	adaptive design, group sequential design, sample size re-estimation, platform trial	non-inferiority trial, bioequivalence study, active-control trial, Denklik ve Üstünlük Olmayan Çalışma (Equivalence / Non-Inferiority)	group sequential design, adaptive stopping design, Ardışık Deneme Tasarımı (Sequential / Group Sequential)
相关	3	6	3
摘要	Adaptive clinical trial design is a flexible experimental framework, formalised by Bauer and Köhne in 1994, in which pre-specified rules allow the trial to be modified mid-course — adjusting sample size, treatment arms, or randomisation ratios — based on accumulating interim data while rigorously controlling the Type I error rate.	An equivalence or non-inferiority trial is a clinical study design that tests whether a new intervention is clinically equivalent to, or no worse than, an established standard by a pre-specified margin. Codified in Schuirmann's 1987 Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) framework and embedded in EMA and FDA regulatory guidance, this design is the regulatory standard for generic drug approval and medical device testing.	Sequential and group sequential trial designs allow a study to be stopped early — or continued — based on interim analyses conducted as data accumulate. The core framework was formalised by O'Brien and Fleming in 1979 and extended by Lan and DeMets's alpha-spending approach, and it controls the overall Type I error rate across all planned looks by pre-specifying both efficacy and futility boundaries before enrolment begins.