Conceptual problems and questionable evidence in defining non-inferiority margins – a reply to Flückiger et al.

From 19 meta-analyses comparing active bona fide treatments, Flückiger et al. (2026) recently calculated a between-group effect size (SMD) of -0.17 for primary outcomes and of -0.16 for secondary outcomes. They suggested using these effect sizes as empirically derived non-inferiority margins. However, Flückiger et al.'s approach is conceptually problematic and lacks empirical support. Without a rationale, empirically found differences between active treatments cannot per se be regarded as non-inferiority margins.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Psychotherapy Research
Published
2026-07-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2026.2701025
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Conceptual problems and questionable evidence in defining non-inferiority margins – a reply to Flückiger et al.

Nikolas Heim, Falk Leichsenring, Christiane Steinert
Psychotherapy Research
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Conceptual problems and questionable evidence in defining non-inferiority margins – a reply to Flückiger et al.

Nikolas Heim, Falk Leichsenring, Christiane Steinert
article en

Abstract

From 19 meta-analyses comparing active bona fide treatments, Flückiger et al. (2026) recently calculated a between-group effect size (SMD) of -0.17 for primary outcomes and of -0.16 for secondary outcomes. They suggested using these effect sizes as empirically derived non-inferiority margins. However, Flückiger et al.'s approach is conceptually problematic and lacks empirical support. Without a rationale, empirically found differences between active treatments cannot per se be regarded as non-inferiority margins.

Psychotherapy Research
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE), International Psychoanalytic University Berlin (DE), Klinik für Psychosomatik (DE), University of Rostock (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.