Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research · 2026
Establishing empirically derived non-inferiority margins for large-scale trials: An umbrella review of meta-analytic comparisons of bona fide psychological therapies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Flückiger Christoph, Barkham Michael, Goméz Penedo Juan Martín
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Setting non-inferiority margins has been problematic with decision making often appearing to be arbitrary. A pragmatic approach is to use the existing literature to provide empirical reference values for these margins. The current meta-analytic umbrella review estimates empirically derived non-inferiority margins for direct psychological therapy comparisons meeting bona fide conditions.
METHODS: A systematic search identified meta-analytic estimates of bona fide comparisons for primary and secondary outcomes. We conducted multilevel meta-analyses of these estimates to obtain generalizable empirically derived point-estimate non-inferiority margins.
RESULTS: Most patients included in the analyses represented populations commonly expected in outpatient psychological therapy settings. Overall, 46 meta-analytic standardized mean differences (SMD) nested in 19 meta-analyses (mean of 15.6 primary studies and 1302 participants in each meta-analysis) were identified to estimate generalizable non-inferiority margins. The estimated homogeneously distributed margins for the primary outcomes were SMD = -.17 (95% CI = -.21, -.13) and for secondary outcomes SMD = -.16 (95% CI = -.20, -.11), respectively.
DISCUSSION: This study provides empirically derived estimates for non-inferiority margins that are generalizable to large-scale trials to differentiate between small but nuanced effects and negligible non-inferior effects. Research on bona fide psychological therapy that accepts working on small effects needs careful consideration of confounding effects.
METHODS: A systematic search identified meta-analytic estimates of bona fide comparisons for primary and secondary outcomes. We conducted multilevel meta-analyses of these estimates to obtain generalizable empirically derived point-estimate non-inferiority margins.
RESULTS: Most patients included in the analyses represented populations commonly expected in outpatient psychological therapy settings. Overall, 46 meta-analytic standardized mean differences (SMD) nested in 19 meta-analyses (mean of 15.6 primary studies and 1302 participants in each meta-analysis) were identified to estimate generalizable non-inferiority margins. The estimated homogeneously distributed margins for the primary outcomes were SMD = -.17 (95% CI = -.21, -.13) and for secondary outcomes SMD = -.16 (95% CI = -.20, -.11), respectively.
DISCUSSION: This study provides empirically derived estimates for non-inferiority margins that are generalizable to large-scale trials to differentiate between small but nuanced effects and negligible non-inferior effects. Research on bona fide psychological therapy that accepts working on small effects needs careful consideration of confounding effects.