Crawford et al ^{Reference Crawford, Thana, Methuen, Ghosh, Stanley and Ross1} have set out to investigate whether screening for suicidal ideation among people who attend primary care services and have signs of depression increases the short-term incidence of feeling that life is not worth living. It seems to me that this is a non-inferiority trial, i.e. the authors want to show that screening is no worse than not screening. This raises a number of design issues.

First, the trial is powered to detect an increase in the proportion who felt their life was not worth living from 30% to 45%. This seems a clinically large increase and suggests that anything short of a 50% increase in relative risk is acceptable. Second, having calculated the sample size based on relative risk, they analyse the main results using odds ratios rather than relative risk, so that it is difficult to see what sort of increase in relative risk was found and impossible to see the confidence interval around the relative risk. Third, if this is seen as a non-inferiority trial, arguably screening would be regarded as non-inferior provided that the possibility of the suicidal ideation rate being 50% worse than non-screening could be ruled out (in the sense that the 95% confidence interval for the difference in ideation rates would not include 50% inferiority relative to the non-screened group). ^{Reference Pocock2} We only have the confidence interval around the odds ratio to go on, but given how wide that is, it is highly likely that the confidence interval would include the 50% increase in relative risk. For these reasons I think the results should be treated with caution.