Semantic shift from non-inferior to possibly superior. A good example!

The insurance and pension fund (CPR SNCF) of the French National Railways (SNCF) sends an email to women insured inviting them to participate in the MyPeBS study. Although MyPeBS is a non-inferiority study, the letter states that « researchers will assess whether personalized screening would be more effective than the one currently organized. »

This wording is incorrect because, as a non-inferiority study, the goal of MyPEBS is not to demonstrate that personalized screening is more effective than current screening but to demonstrate that personalized screening is no less effective than current screening.

It's easy to see why there's an interest in demonstrating that personalized screening is better than current screening. But what is the point of demonstrating that personalized screening isn't any worse than standard screening?
If the study concludes that personalized screening is no less effective than current screening but not necessarily more effective, policymakers will not be much further ahead. They will be left to flip a coin to determine whether to continue with current screening or switch to personalized screening.

To say that MyPEBS aims to test whether personalized screening is more effective than current screening is to make women believe that by taking part in MyPEBS, they will help to improve breast cancer screening in Europe.
Unfortunately, this is an illusion. MyPEBS is of little interest as a non-inferiority study, and the women who participate will have contributed to the promotion of breast cancer screening rather than its improvement.

A letter was sent to the Director of the CPR SNCF, requesting that the mail be modified and truth restored. Let's wait and see what happens next. If there is no response, and since the INCa wants to establish itself as a great fake news fighter, it may be necessary to denounce this fake news from the CPR SNCF to the INCa 😊.

---

Dernière mise à jour le 12/09/2021