ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2026
A Bayesian framework to evaluate non-inferiority in randomized controlled trials of uncommon conditions.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Practical approaches to Bayesian sample size determination in non-inferiority trials with binary outcomes.Statistics in medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesNoninferiority (NI) trials typically require larger sample sizes than superiority comparisons. This is problematic for uncommon conditions where recruitment is restricted. When a power calculation results in an unfeasibly large sample size, there is a need to justify whether a trial in an uncommon condition is worth undertaking. We propose reversing the question to demonstrate what can be shown with a feasible maximum sample size using a Bayesian framework in place of a traditional power calculation.
methodsWe propose using the posterior probability of noninferiority to demonstrate the value of undertaking an NI trial using a credible NI margin. We describe a five-part Bayesian framework: the data generation/analysis model; maximum feasible sample size; different potential outcomes; primary NI margin; and plausible priors. We illustrate the framework in an NIHR-funded NI trial of mepolizumab compared to omalizumab in children with severe therapy resistant asthma. We examine the trial operating characteristics when mepolizumab is inferior, identical, and superior to omalizumab under four differing prior distributions on the treatment effect (3 informative, 1 vague) and demonstrate suitable interpretation.
resultsOur case study had a maximum feasible sample size of 150 severe therapy resistant asthmatic children. Using the proposed Bayesian framework we demonstrated that if mepolizumab was truly identical or superior to omalizumab, then the average posterior probability of noninferiority would be reassuringly high, from 0.87 to >0.99. The probabilities were reassuringly low when mepolizumab was inferior (≤0.22). The framework provided a comprehensible summary for reviewers to judge the value of undertaking the trial.
conclusionA Bayesian approach using posterior probability for NI trials can offer a practical way to assess the value of undertaking a trial in an uncommon condition with a fixed sample size as an alternative to a power calculation.
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.