Field-specific jargon words I intensely dislike: noninferior.
Inspired by a different thread - Farfelkugel, the multilayered horse name joke in "Robin Hood, Men in Tights".
Inspired by a different thread - Farfelkugel, the multilayered horse name joke in "Robin Hood, Men in Tights". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLtk_VfbKzU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLtk_VfbKzU
Non-inferior? You mean what everyone else would call superior? Or perhaps normal even?
ReplyDeletePamela Korda right, normal.
ReplyDeleteDrug studies, mostly (also devices). Very specifically not superiority trials, which are different (and less common).
ReplyDeleteIt just seems stupid that instead of saying equivalent, or specifying the different feature that is supposed to be an improved option but not necessarily specifically the therapeutic effect, they call them noninferior. Because that also tells you that all they are doing is coming up with a statistical measure of how much worse is too much worse as the standard, rather than what is the potential benefit, if any, and how beneficial does it have to be?
I think that influences the thinking and approach to these, not in a good way. And many people are confused by it and take it to imply that it must be at least as good if not better, which is wrong.
P.S. I am aware that this term was chosen specifically in an attempt to be more precise, but it seems to me to end up communicating less well in the real world.
If there are three different states, then not-state A is something distinctly different from state B or C. You could go with "Equivalent or superior", but honestly that is nearly as bad as "noninferior", at least to me.
ReplyDeleteYeah. As I said, I know they were trying to be precise, but it's such a not ordinary speech kind of phrase that it creates as many problems as it was intended to solve.
ReplyDelete