Response to the comments by Cavalcante et al. regarding our article entitled “Understanding non-inferiority trials: Lessons from trials comparing thrombectomy with or without intravenous thrombolysis.” - 13/03/26
Doi : 10.1016/j.neuchi.2026.101791
William Boisseau a, ⁎ 
, Tim E. Darsaut b, Jean Raymond c
, Tim E. Darsaut b, Jean Raymond c a Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Fondation Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, Ile de France, France
b University of Alberta Hospital, Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
c Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Department of Radiology, Service of Neuroradiology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
⁎ Corresponding author.
Highlights |
• | Non-inferiority (NI) trials face major challenges, such as defining an acceptable NI margin. |
• | Even clinically reasonable non-inferiority margins require unrealistically large trial sizes. |
• | With mRS > 2 occurring in ≥50% of thrombectomy patients, we need better, not non-inferior treatments. |
© 2026
Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Vol 72 - N° 3
Article 101791- mai 2026 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Optimized intracerebral hematoma management with ultrasound-guided minimally invasive surgery (HUG-MIS): A technical note
- Nourou Dine A. Bankole, Raphael Ly, Etienne Dugast, Aymeric Amelot, Marco Pasi, Grégoire Boulouis, Ilyess Zemmoura
- Comments on “Trends and development of enhanced recovery after surgery programs in cranial and spinal neurosurgery”
- Baharuddin Baharuddin, Lilies Handayani, Maher M. Akl
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?