The DFG is a state-funded but private association (e.V.). Its core principle is therefore self-governance - and hardly any of our fellow DFG colleagues seems to be paritculary concerned with revising their infrastructure to improve usability

Albert Ellis who was the first to introduce Cognition into Behavioural Therapy in 1957. (Rational psychotherapy and individual psychology. Journal of Individual psychology, 13) received 707 cites so far according to Google Scholar

.. because it adheres to the closure principle. However I am not completely sure if that generalizes to the intersection hypotheses evaluated by equivalence testing? The additional evaluation of absent super-superiority might result in error inflation?

Question: is there multiplicity when performing equivalence in conjunction with superiority testing? Equivalence is established by the intersection of present non-inferiority and absent super-superiority (term sucks I know). CHMP guidance says switch from non-inferiority to superiority is ok.. (1/2)

Exactly. If more participants are enrolled than needed, a study becomes inherently unethical. If significance and relevance are conceptually collapsible, there is no need for a competition among the different decision frameworks. What's the utility of a "significant" result if it's not relevant?

During the last years, I've started to reframe the problem as a question of relevance that is attributable to significance. A properly planned prospective study ensures that both, significance and relevance coincide. Otherwise any test decision (e.g. for superiority) becomes practically meaningless.

Sorry d = 3

Having taken into consideration, that the variability of the feces ratings will probably be close to 0 (and so will be the correlation), I'd stick to the d = 0.3 ;)

Jingle-jangle detection!

If mean diff is standardized by between-participant variability and the sample is pop-representative, my guess is d = 3 SD

At least to my mind.. Anyway - if you like, we might a deep dive into this at the upcoming FGME conf

Indeed. Those serious adverse events (SAE) are extreme manifestations of MDD morbidity. Thus, nocebo treatments (ie waitlists) increase the likelihood of SAE compared to standard of care. Given this risk, a non-inferiority trial against psychotherapy would have been more ethical and informative..

The NEJM article is paywalled, which complicates detailed inspection. Yet, I'd argue that MDD treatments yield potentially fatal adverse events.

Notwithstanding compliance with the WMA Declaration of Helsinki 2000, which requires that participants in therapeutic trials must receive the best proven, non-experimental intervention. Which is certainly not a waitlist..

I'd go even further: Psychological placebo conditions, specifically waitlists which serve as nocebos, are inherently unethical (cf WMA Declaration of Helsinki, 2000). Active comparators incl. the simple A/B scheme are the way to go if we are actually into proving the superiority of psychotherapies