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
- Nikolas Heim (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2820-4051)
- Falk Leichsenring (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3808-0072)
- Christiane Steinert
Institutions
- Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
- International Psychoanalytic University Berlin (DE)
- Klinik für Psychosomatik (DE)
- University of Rostock (DE)
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