Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40756703›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine2025

Tackling control risk problems in non-inferiority trials.

Ian R White, Matteo Quartagno, Abdel G Babiker, Rebecca M Turner, Mahesh Kb Parmar, A Sarah Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

6 authors.

Ian R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-7661
Matteo QuartagnoMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Abdel G BabikerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Rebecca M TurnerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Mahesh Kb ParmarMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
A Sarah WalkerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-inferiority trials aim to show that major disease related outcomes with a new intervention are not importantly worse than with standard care. These trials are useful when the new intervention has some advantages over standard care (eg, toxicity, convenience, or cost). The ability to show non-inferiority, however, is sensitive to the control risk, the outcome frequency under standard care. Two control risk problems are described that can make non-inferiority trials underpowered or uninterpretable, and two ways of tackling these problems are outlined. Firstly, the choice of effect measure used to express the non-inferiority margin is critical: the effect measure must be based on understanding both the clinical setting and the implications for sample size. Which effect measures can lead to smaller or larger sample sizes is shown. Secondly, investigators need to consider, and potentially plan for, the possibility that the observed control risk might differ from the anticipated risk at the design stage of the trial. How the non-inferiority margin can be adapted in the trial analysis in a statistically principled manner is shown.

Indexed as

Clinical trialResearch designStatistics

Identifiers

PMID40756703
PMCPMC12314831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.