Abstract:Graphical abstract Highlights • Superiority margins can be used to plan for clinically significant studies • Prospectively they could eliminate interventions that are unlikely to be beneficial • A study result can be in one of seven positions when considering all hypotheses • We usually don't have a consensus on minimal clinically significant thresholds This paper examines the application of super-superiority margins in study power calculations. Unlike traditional power calculations, which primarily aim to reject the null hypothesis by any margin, a super-superiority margin establishes a clinically significant threshold. Despite potential benefits, this approach, akin to a non-inferiority calculation but in an opposing direction, is rarely used. Implementing a super-superiority margin separates the notion of the likely difference between two groups (the effect size) from the minimum clinically significant difference, without which inconsistent positions could be held. However, these are often used interchangeably. In an audit of 30 recent randomized controlled trial power calculations, four studies utilized the minimal acceptable difference, and nine utilized the expected difference. In the other studies, this was unclarified. In the post hoc scenario, this approach can shed light on the value of undertaking further studies, which is not apparent from the standard power calculation. The acceptance and rejection of the alternate hypothesis for super-superiority, non-inferiority, equivalence, and standard superiority studies have been compared. When a fixed minimal acceptable difference is applied, a study result will be in one of seven logical positions with regards to the simultaneous application of these hypotheses. The trend for increased trial size and the mirror approach of non-inferiority studies implies that newer interventions may be becoming less effective. Powering for superiority could counter this and ensure that a pre-trial evaluation of clinical significance has taken place, which is necessary to confirm that interventions are beneficial.

Policy equipoise and interventional superiority

Assignment Procedure Biases In Randomised Policy Experiments

Comparative Effectiveness Research: What to Do when Experts Disagree about Risks

Optimizing Interventions for Equitability: Some Initial Ideas

A Desperate Solution: Individual Autonomy and the Double-Blind Controlled Experiment

What Should Be Clinicians' Roles in Regulatory Assessment of Prospective Interventions' Risks of Exacerbating Inequity?

Optimal and Fair Encouragement Policy Evaluation and Learning

Improved Policy Evaluation for Randomized Trials of Algorithmic Resource Allocation

Contextual equipoise: a novel concept to inform ethical implications for implementation research in low-income and middle-income countries

Adapting power calculations to include a superiority margin: what are the implications?

Considerations when applying equity weights within economic evaluation when making drug reimbursement decisions

Comparing MTI randomization procedures to blocked randomization

Radical Thinking: Scientific Rigor and Pragmatism

Disentangling Treatment and Placebo Effects in Randomized Experiments Using Principal Stratification-An Introduction

Public Reason, Bioethics, and Public Policy: A Seductive Delusion or Ambitious Aspiration?

Preference for and Fairness of Intervention: Influence of Third-Party Control, Third-Party Status and Conflict Setting

Utilitarianism on the front lines: COVID-19, public ethics, and the "hidden assumption" problem

Understanding the Intention-to-treat Principle in Randomized Controlled Trials

Deploying a Robust Active Preference Elicitation Algorithm on MTurk: Experiment Design, Interface, and Evaluation for COVID-19 Patient Prioritization

The Optimality of Blocking Designs in Equally and Unequally Allocated Randomized Experiments with General Response

Improving the Validity of Non-Interventional Comparative Effectiveness Research by Basing Study Design on a Specified Existing Randomised Controlled Trial