Topic summary
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset
This is a generated summary. It shows the 5 most-liked posts from a topic of 38, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
revision_history, post #3: Non-inferiority margins is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for. Go to post
Risk of bias: structured appraisal of internal validity. Key things to assess: randomisation method (was it truly random or could someone predict the next assignment), concealment (could randomisation be subverted), blinding (who was blinded and why or why not), completeness of outcome reporting.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
desiccant_notes, post #26: Absolute and relative effects answer different questions. Write down the event rate in each arm and the difference between them; everything quotable is derived from those two numbers. The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why. Go to post
Narrowing post #27, because the general version has more than one answer.
Non-inferiority margins would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
PSundberg, post #5: I read post #3 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. The confident answers on Non-inferiority margins and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category. Go to post
Practical answer on Non-inferiority margins, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.
Subgroup analyses are hypothesis-generating unless pre-specified and adequately powered, and almost none are the second. The interaction test matters more than the subgroup point estimate.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
21 likes 5mo
Read the full topic (38 posts)
Promoted into the documentation commons. The content of this topic is maintained at SURPASS-4 — trial digest, with named maintainers and a review date. The promotion was discussed in doc review. Corrections are best raised against the document, which is the version that gets kept current.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones
On the subject in the title: Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones Working notes rather than a conclusion. An honest uncertainty about comparators chosen for regulatory reasons…
|
2 | 27k | 14mo | |
|
Run-in periods and the population they select
On the subject in the title: Run-in periods and the population they select Working notes rather than a conclusion. An honest uncertainty about run-in periods rather than a disguised assertion. I do not know…
|
+130 | 142 | 7.3k | 1mo |
|
Follow-up: Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not
Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin Open-label extensions down and I want to set…
|
+22 | 26 | 397 | 16mo |
|
Second pass at: Reading a trial's population section before its results
Second pass at: Reading a trial's population section before its results Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Reading STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) for the…
|
4 | 9.5k | 10h | |
|
Interim analyses and stopping rules
Interim analyses and stopping rules Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about interim analyses and stopping rules on behalf of the question I keep seeing…
|
+25 | 29 | 35k | 16d |
Related topics — sharing the tags randomised trial, discontinuation & dropout, intention to treat
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg
The question in the title: What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I would like to know what…
|
+23 | 27 | 9.9k | 1mo |
|
Reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press release
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press release Everything below is what sits behind that. What changes if the standard account of reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press…
|
+103 | 121 | 7k | 7mo |
|
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on Subgroup analyses. It is mine, it is…
|
+71 | 79 | 906 | 3mo |
|
Coming back to: The SOUL trial and oral semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes
The SOUL trial and oral semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. SOUL trial and oral semaglutide — I have the observation and I do not trust my…
|
+100 | 104 | 4.2k | 5mo |
|
Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters Everything below is what sits behind that. I was wrong about Primary endpoint hierarchies in a thread…
|
+21 | 25 | 46k | 3mo |