ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019
Bayes factors for superiority, non-inferiority, and equivalence designs.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Beneficial vs harmful effects of pharmacological treatment of patent ductus arteriosus: A Bayesian meta-analysis.Pediatric research · 2025Pooled it
- Treating posttraumatic stress disorder at home in a single week using 1-week virtual massed cognitive processing therapy.Journal of traumatic stress · 2022Trial
- HIV clinic-based extended-release naltrexone versus treatment as usual for people with HIV and opioid use disorder: a non-blinded, randomized non-inferiority trial.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2022Trial
- Examining treatment outcomes for military service members in an intensive treatment program for posttraumatic stress disorder.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2026Article
- Article
- Higher income is associated with greater life satisfaction, and more stress.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Bayes factors for two-group comparisons in Cox regression with an application for reverse-engineering raw data from summary statistics.Journal of applied statistics · 2025Article
- Data-driven prior elicitation for Bayes factors in Cox regression for nine subfields in biomedicine.PloS one · 2025Article
- Using the 'Leapfrog' Design as a Simple Form of Adaptive Platform Trial to Develop, Test, and Implement Treatment Personalization Methods in Routine Practice.Administration and policy in mental health · 2024Article
- A Bayesian Spatial Scan Statistic for Multinomial Data.Statistics & probability letters · 2024Article
- A Bayesian approach for evaluating equivalence over multiple groups, and comparison with frequentist tost.Journal of applied statistics · 2024Article
- Veterans' 12-month PTSD and depression outcomes following 2- and 3-week intensive cognitive processing therapy-based treatment.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2024Article
- baymedr: an R package and web application for the calculation of Bayes factors for superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority designs.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Bayesian multilevel multivariate logistic regression for superiority decision-making under observable treatment heterogeneity.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Reducing the false discovery rate of preclinical animal research with Bayesian statistical decision criteria.Statistical methods in medical research · 2023Article
- A Bayesian Method for Exposure Prevalence Comparison During Foodborne Disease Outbreak Investigations.Foodborne pathogens and disease · 2023Article
- Safety and Tolerability of tDCS across Different Ages, Sexes, Diagnoses, and Amperages: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Smartphone video nystagmography using convolutional neural networks: ConVNG.Journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Wearable cardioverter defibrillator for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients at risk: An updated systematic review of comparative effectiveness and safety.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2023Review
- More is not always better: 2 weeks of intensive cognitive processing therapy-based treatment are noninferior to 3 weeks.Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical trials, study designs may focus on assessment of superiority, equivalence, or non-inferiority, of a new medicine or treatment as compared to a control. Typically, evidence in each of these paradigms is quantified with a variant of the null hypothesis significance test. A null hypothesis is assumed (null effect, inferior by a specific amount, inferior by a specific amount and superior by a specific amount, for superiority, non-inferiority, and equivalence respectively), after which the probabilities of obtaining data more extreme than those observed under these null hypotheses are quantified by p-values. Although ubiquitous in clinical testing, the null hypothesis significance test can lead to a number of difficulties in interpretation of the results of the statistical evidence.
methodsWe advocate quantifying evidence instead by means of Bayes factors and highlight how these can be calculated for different types of research design.
resultsWe illustrate Bayes factors in practice with reanalyses of data from existing published studies.
conclusionsBayes factors for superiority, non-inferiority, and equivalence designs allow for explicit quantification of evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. They also allow for interim testing without the need to employ explicit corrections for multiple testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.