Aller au contenu principal
2026 preprint

Non-Inferiority Margins in Randomized Controlled Trials in Abdominal Surgery – a Systematic Review

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
10Institutions déclarées
5Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : de, se, at, ch, gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABSTRACT Importance Non-inferiority trials are becoming increasingly popular in abdominal surgery. The non-inferiority margin is critical in the interpretation and conclusion of these trials. Objective This systematic review aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of non-inferiority randomized controlled trials in abdominal surgery. Evidence Review Non-inferiority trials were systematically identified by searching Ovid Medline, Embase and the CENTRAL databases from 2006 until December 2025. Randomized controlled trials in adult patients with any type of abdominal surgical intervention in at least one trial arm and a sample size ≥100 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the definition of the non-inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes were the reporting of the non-inferiority margin, the robustness of its estimation, the uncertainty of the point estimate and the adequacy of conclusions. Findings A total of 11’045 trials were identified, of which 101 were eligible, enrolling 44’370 patients. Most trials provided a rationale for the non-inferiority design, while six (5.9%) trials did not. Previous literature was commonly used (n=56; 55.4%), but the non-inferiority margin was most often based on a clinical fixed margin or on historical comparison of the treatment and the active comparator. Based on the margin, investigators tolerated substantially worse outcomes of the treatment compared to the comparator. Conclusions were appropriate based on the confidence interval and the predefined non-inferiority margin in 88 (87.1%) of trials. The clinical judgement of the conclusion was overall adequate. Confidence interval estimations were reported in 16 (15.8%) of trials. Simulation studies were limited by the reporting quality. Conclusions and Relevance Clinical fixed margins are commonly used in abdominal surgery non-inferiority randomized controlled trials, however, substantial shortcomings in reporting limit the interpretability and reproduction of study findings. Based on the findings of this study, guidance on surgical-specific non-inferiority margin definitions is needed. KEY POINTS Question How are non-inferiority margins estimated in surgical randomized controlled trials? Findings In this systematic review, non-inferiority margins were nearly always numerically defined, but reporting of how they were estimated was poor. Most frequently, clinical fixed margins were utilized and previous evidence was either ignored or not included at the design stage. The selected margins often tolerated substantially worse outcomes in the treatment group compared to the comparator. Meaning Improved reporting and guidance on the conduct of surgical non-inferiority trials are required.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Non-Inferiority Margins in Randomized Controlled Trials in Abdominal Surgery – a Systematic Review
Date Crossref
02/09/2026
Éditeur
openRxiv
Type
posted-content

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Où se fait cette recherche

  • Heidelberg University Department of General pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • University Hospital Heidelberg pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • Karolinska University Hospital Department of Clinical Sciences pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • Medical University of Vienna Department of General Surgery pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • Ospedale Regionale di Bellinzona e Valli pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • Edinburgh Napier University Centre for Biomedicine & Global Health pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • Edinburgh Royal Infirmary pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • University of Edinburgh Clinical Surgery pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • Edinburgh Cancer Research pays non établi dans la notice
    Structure de recherche
  • University Hospital of Basel pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • Regional Hospital of Bellinzona e Valli Department of Surgery pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • European Palliative Care Research Centre pays non établi dans la notice
    Structure de recherche

Department of General — Heidelberg University, University Hospital Heidelberg et Department of Clinical Sciences — Karolinska University Hospital, avec 9 autres affiliations.

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.