Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42056883›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026

Choose-NI-metric: a shiny application for converting and comparing non-inferiority metrics in binary endpoint trials.

Wen Liu, Senmiao Ni, Ruyu Huang, Jingwei Wu, Hao Yu, Zhihang Peng, Zihang Zhong, Jianling Bai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Wen Liu *Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211166, China.
Senmiao Ni *Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211166, China.
Ruyu HuangDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211166, China.
Jingwei WuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Barnett College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19122, USA.
Hao YuDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211166, China.
Zhihang PengDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211166, China. zhihangpeng@njmu.edu.cn.
Zihang ZhongDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211166, China. zhzhong@njmu.edu.cn.
Jianling BaiDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211166, China. baijianling@njmu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82273738National Natural Science Foundation of China 82404374
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn non-inferiority (NI) clinical trials with binary outcomes, treatment effects are commonly quantified using the risk difference (RD), relative risk (RR), or odds ratio (OR), each of which can be used to define a non-inferiority margin. Although these measures are mathematically related, results reported under different metrics are often difficult to interpret and compare in practice, particularly for clinicians without extensive statistical training. In addition, recent methodological work has shown that the choice of effect measures can meaningfully influence sample size requirements at the design stage. To address these challenges, we developed Choose-NI-metric, an open-access Shiny application that facilitates translation and comparison across NI metrics within a unified framework.

resultsChoose-NI-metric combines statistical computation with interactive visualizations to support both interpretation and trial design. The application allows users to convert among RD, RR, and OR, and to examine how sample size requirements vary across metrics. Sample size calculations are implemented using both the Wald approach and the method of variance estimation recovery (MOVER). An applied example based on the FRIDA trial illustrates that different choices of effect measure can result in substantial differences in required sample size, highlighting the practical implications of metric selection.

conclusionsChoose-NI-metric offers an accessible platform that connects clinical interpretation with statistical considerations in NI trial design. By enabling direct translation and comparison among RD, RR, and OR, the application supports more transparent interpretation of results across studies and informed selection of effect measures, ultimately contributing to more efficient and cost-effective non-inferiority studies.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationEquivalence Trials as TopicResearch DesignSoftwareData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalOdds RatioSample SizeTreatment OutcomeBinary outcomeNon-inferiority trialOdds ratioRelative riskRisk differenceSample sizeShiny

Identifiers

PMID42056883
PMCPMC13270805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.