Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39916453›Full record

ReviewJournal of stroke2025

Non-Inferiority Trials in Stroke Research: What Are They, and How Should We Interpret Them?

Linxin Li, Vasileios-Arsenios Lioutas, Ralph K Akyea, Stefan Gerner, Kui Kai Lau, Emily Ramage, Aristeidis H Katsanos, George Howard, Philip M Bath

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of stroke, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Linxin LiWolfson Centre for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Vasileios-Arsenios LioutasBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ralph K AkyeaCentre for Academic Primary Care, Lifespan & Population Health Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Stefan GernerDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany.
Kui Kai LauUniversity of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Emily RamageFlorey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Victoria, Australia.
Aristeidis H KatsanosMcMaster University/Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
George HowardUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Philip M BathStroke Trials Unit, Mental Health & Clinical Neuroscience, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials are important in both clinical and academic stroke communities with increasing numbers of new design concepts emerging. One of the "less traditional" designs that have gained increasing interest in the last decade is non-inferiority trials. Whilst the concept might appear straightforward, the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials can be challenging. In this review, we will use exemplars from clinical trials in the stroke field to provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of non-inferiority trials and how they should be interpreted in stroke research.

Indexed as

Clinical trialMethodologyNon-inferiorityStrokeTrial design

Identifiers

PMID39916453
PMCPMC11834339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.