Randomized clinical trials are important in both clinical and academic stroke communities with increasing numbers of new design concepts emerging. One of the “less traditional” designs that have gained increasing interest in the last decade is non-inferiority trials. Whilst the concept might appear straightforward, the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials can be challenging. In this review, we will use exemplars from clinical trials in the stroke field to provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of non-inferiority trials and how they should be interpreted in stroke research.

Randomized clinical trials are important in both clinical and academic stroke communities with increasing numbers of new design concepts emerging. One of the “less traditional” designs that have gained increasing interest in the last decade is non-inferiority trials. Whilst the concept might appear straightforward, the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials can be challenging. In this review, we will use exemplars from clinical trials in the stroke field to provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of non-inferiority trials and how they should be interpreted in stroke research.

Randomized clinical trials are important in both clinical and academic stroke communities with increasing numbers of new design concepts emerging. One of the “less traditional” designs that have gained increasing interest in the last decade is non-inferiority trials. Whilst the concept might appear straightforward, the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials can be challenging. In this review, we will use exemplars from clinical trials in the stroke field to provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of non-inferiority trials and how they should be interpreted in stroke research.