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.

Simplification or simulation: Power calculation in clinical trials

Efficient and flexible simulation-based sample size determination for clinical trials with multiple design parameters

BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

Estimating the Sampling Distribution of Posterior Decision Summaries in Bayesian Clinical Trials

Power/sample size calculations for assessing correlates of risk in clinical efficacy trials

Sample Size Estimation in Clinical Research

Seamless Phase II/III Design: a Useful Strategy to Reduce the Sample Size for Dose Optimization

Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

A Sample Size Planning Approach That Considers Both Statistical Significance and Clinical Significance

Sample size estimation and power analysis for clinical research studies

Sample size re-estimation in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure

Predictive Probabilities Made Simple: A Fast and Accurate Method for Clinical Trial Decision Making

Sample size calculation for clinical trials analyzed with the meta‐analytic‐predictive approach

Conditional Power and Friends: The Why and How of (Un)planned, Unblinded Sample Size Recalculations in Confirmatory Trials

Sample size calculation with simple math for clinical researchers

Sample Size Calculation: Inaccurate A Priori Assumptions for Nuisance Parameters Can Greatly Affect the Power of a Randomized Controlled Trial

The symbolic two-step method applied to cancer care delivery research: Safeguarding against designing an underpowered cluster randomized trial with a continuous outcome by accounting for the imprecision in the within- and between-center variation

A Practical Simulation Method to Calculate Sample Size of Group Sequential Trials for Time-to-Event Data under Exponential and Weibull Distribution

Sample size estimation for cancer randomized trials in the presence of heterogeneous populations

On sample size calculation based on odds ratio in clinical trials.

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