There are three principal difficulties in interpreting active-control trials.

First, active-control trials are often too small to show that a clinically meaningful difference between the two treatments, if present, could have been detected with reasonable assurance; i.e., the trials have a high "beta-error." In part, this can be overcome by increasing sample size, but two other problems remain even if studies are large.

One problem is that there are numerous ways of conducting a study that can obscure differences between treatments, such as poor diagnostic criteria, poor methods of measurement, poor compliance, medication errors, or poor training of observers. As a general statement, carelessness of all kinds will tend to obscure differences between treatments. Where the objective of a study is to show a difference, investigators have powerful stimuli toward assuring study excellence. Active-control studies, however, which are intended to show no significant difference between treatments, do not provide the same incentives toward study excellence, and it is difficult to detect or assess the kinds of poor study quality that can arise.

The other problem is that a finding of no difference between a test article and an effective treatment may not be meaningful. Even where all the incentives toward study excellence are present, i.e., in placebo-controlled trials, effective drugs are not necessarily demonstrably effective (i.e. superior to placebo) every time they are studied. In the absence of a placebo group, a finding of no difference in an active-control study therefore can mean that both agents are effective, that neither agent was effective in that study, or that the study was simply unable to tell effective from ineffective agents. In other words, to draw the conclusion that the test article was effective, one has to know with assurance that the active-control would have shown superior results to a placebo, had a placebo group been included in the study.

For certain drug classes, such as analgesics, antidepressants or antianxiety drugs, failure to show superiority to placebo in a given study is common. This is also often seen with antihypertensives, anti-angina drugs, anti-heart failure treatments, antihistamines, and drugs for asthma prophylaxis. In these situations, active-control trials showing no difference between the new drug and control are of little value as primary evidence of effectiveness and the active-control design (the study design most often proposed as an alternative to use of a placebo) is not credible.

In many situations, deciding whether an active-control design is likely to be a useful basis for providing data for marketing approval is a matter of judgment influenced by available evidence. If, for example, examination of prior studies of a proposed active-control reveals that the test article can very regularly (almost always) be distinguished from placebo in a particular setting (subject population, dose, and other defined parameters), an active-control design may be reasonable if it reproduces the setting in which the active-control has been regularly effective.

‍