Non‐inferiority studies: is ‘better’ the enemy of ‘good enough’?

Negative outcomes in critical care trials: applying the wrong statistics – or asking the wrong questions?

“…Thirdly, reliance on proving the null hypothesis to be false may offer perverse trial design incentives, lead to publication bias and may even distort the scientific record [5]. Fourthly, non-significance is often conflated with evidence for a lack of effect or non-inferiority [6]. Finally, patients are rarely interested in whether the benefit from a proposed treatment was probably 'not due to chance' in a randomly selected sample; they simply want to know if it is effective for them [7].…”

Medical device regulation: the need for clinical vigilance and oversight

“…Sometimes, we may knowingly change the equipment we use as part of service evaluation or audit so as to reduce our costs or increase efficiency. Clinicians may wish to ensure this is on a non‐inferiority basis and using the best available evidence.…”

Cricoid force: time to put it to one side.

“…Other studies that have been carried out over the years using cricoid force would need to be replicated with paratracheal compression, such as the ability to prevent regurgitation with increasing oesophageal pressures in cadaveric studies, the effect on airway patency and ease of facemask ventilation/tracheal intubation, how it influences placement of SADs and whether it changes the view at laryngoscopy . Most of these studies would be easy to reproduce and could be completed relatively quickly, such that the profession could have an evidence base for non‐inferiority of this technique within a few years.…”