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.

Minimum important difference is minimally important in sample size calculations

Can testing clinical significance reduce false positive rates in randomized controlled trials? A snap review

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

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

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

Statistics in Brief: The Importance of Sample Size in the Planning and Interpretation of Medical Research

Power and Sample Size Calculations for Rerandomization

Optimal sample size allocation for two‐arm superiority and non‐inferiority trials with binary endpoints

Sample Size Calculation and Blinded Sample Size Recalculation in Clinical Trials Where the Treatment Effect is Measured by the Relative Risk

The importance of small samples in medical research

Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable

About statistical significance, and the lack thereof

Power calculation for causal inference in social science: sample size and minimum detectable effect determination

Alternatives to the P value: connotations of significance

Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review

Minimal clinically important difference: Bridging the gap between statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness

Editorial Commentary: The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) Is Less Important Than It Sounds: Patients Seek to Achieve Substantial Clinical Benefits and Not Minimally Perceptible Improvements When They Undergo Arthroscopic Surgery

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

A Statistical Inference Framework for the Minimal Clinically Important Difference

Simplification or simulation: Power calculation in clinical trials

Tips for troublesome sample-size calculation