Randomised non inferiority trial, 180 patients

Physiotherapy research poster example

A non inferiority trial poster has to make the margin visible, because the whole claim rests on it. This board randomises 180 patients to telehealth or in clinic knee rehabilitation, states the 4 point margin in the methods, and puts the 1.2 point difference and its interval in a stat block next to the two arm means.

Create a poster with OneCraftA0 Portrait, printed at 841 by 1189 millimetres

The whole board

The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.

KU
Telehealth against in clinic knee rehabilitation: a non inferiority trial in 180 patients
P. Lindqvist ¹, A. Cheruiyot ¹ ², D. Marchetti ²
1 Department of Physiotherapy, Kelvedon University · 2 Musculoskeletal Service, Greenfold Community Health
ABSTRACT
Knee rehabilitation moved onto video calls during a period when nobody could measure whether it worked, and it has stayed there. This trial randomised 180 patients starting a 12 week knee programme to telehealth or in clinic sessions, with the same exercises and the same physiotherapists in both arms.
INTRODUCTION
The argument for telehealth rehabilitation is access and the argument against it is touch: a physiotherapist on a screen cannot palpate a joint or correct a squat with a hand on a hip. Neither argument has been settled by a trial large enough to answer it for knees.
METHODS
Design. Parallel group randomised non inferiority trial, allocation one to one by a central list in blocks of six, stratified by whether the knee had been operated on in the previous year.
Participants. Adults referred for knee rehabilitation at one community service, able to join a video call, excluded if they needed a walking aid indoors or had a knee replacement booked inside 12 weeks.
Programme. Twelve weeks, one supervised session a week plus a home programme, identical exercise progression in both arms, delivered by the same eight physiotherapists working in both arms.
Outcome. A 0 to 100 patient reported knee function score at 12 weeks, collected by a research assistant who did not deliver any session, with a non inferiority margin of 4 points set in advance.
Analysis. Per protocol and intention to treat both run, with the per protocol result reported here because it is the conservative one in a non inferiority design. Missing outcomes were not imputed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Eight physiotherapists delivered sessions in both arms and kept the attendance records this analysis rests on. The research assistant who collected every outcome delivered no sessions at any point.
Twelve week outcomes
66.8
mean function score, telehealth
0 to 100 scale at 12 weeks, 84 analysed
68.0
mean function score, in clinic
0 to 100 scale at 12 weeks, 86 analysed
1.2 points
difference, inside the 4 point margin
95% CI -1.4 to 3.8, in favour of in clinic care
TelehealthIn clinic036912
Figure 1. Mean supervised sessions attended out of 12, by arm.
Source: attendance records, 170 analysed participants.
PARTICIPANT FLOW
Referrals screened for eligibility
236
Not eligible or declined to take part
56
Randomised one to one
180
90 telehealth and 90 in clinic
90 + 90
Lost to follow up, 6 telehealth and 4 in clinic
10
Analysed, 84 telehealth and 86 in clinic
170
PRIMARY OUTCOME
Function at 12 weeks was 66.8 on video and 68.0 in clinic. The difference of 1.2 points has a 95 per cent interval from -1.4 to 3.8, inside the 4 point margin.
07142128Under 4040 to 5960 plus
Figure 2. Mean change in function score from baseline to 12 weeks, by age band and arm.
Source: 170 analysed participants, 0 to 100 function score.
FUNCTION GAIN BY ARM
Telehealth, under 40
26.1
In clinic, under 40
26.8
Telehealth, 60 plus
23.4
In clinic, 60 plus
25.1
DISCUSSION
Telehealth was non inferior on function and better on attendance, 10.4 supervised sessions against 9.1. The gap by age is what a service should look at before moving a programme online.
CONTRIBUTIONS
Change from baseline was 26.1 against 26.8 points under 40, 24.9 against 26.0 from 40 to 59, and 23.4 against 25.1 at 60 and above. The in clinic advantage grows from 0.7 to 1.7 points, and the trial was not powered to test it.
FUTURE WORK
Two questions are left open. Whether the age pattern is real needs a trial powered for the interaction rather than the main effect. What happens after 12 weeks needs follow up, and a 12 month follow up of this cohort is funded and uses the same score.
CONCLUSIONS
Telehealth knee rehabilitation was non inferior to in clinic care on function at 12 weeks, 66.8 against 68.0 points, with the interval inside the agreed 4 point margin. Attendance was higher on video.
REFERENCES
1.Halloran, M. and Ekwueme, C. (2024) Non inferiority margins in musculoskeletal rehabilitation trials. Journal of Physiotherapy Methods, 20(3), 155 to 179.
2.Sato, R. (2025) Attendance and adherence in supervised video rehabilitation. Community Health Practice Review, 14(1), 40 to 62.
3.Marchetti, D. (2026) Age and delivery mode in knee programmes. Kelvedon Physiotherapy Working Paper 2026-06.

Block by block

What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.

Title band and three authors
The title names the comparison, the design and the sample in one line. Three authors sit over two affiliations, and the registration number sits in the acknowledgements.
Abstract
Why the question is non inferiority rather than superiority, the randomisation and the identical programme in both arms, the primary outcome and its margin, and the two means at 12 weeks.
Background
Access against touch, in four sentences, and why the question a service actually has is whether the result is close enough for the access gain to be worth having.
Methods as a labelled protocol
Five labelled entries: the allocation and its stratification, who was eligible, the identical 12 week programme delivered by the same eight physiotherapists, the blinded outcome collection, and the decision to report the per protocol analysis because it is the conservative one here.
Participant flow
Six nodes: screened, excluded, randomised, the two arms, losses to follow up split by arm, and the 170 analysed. The block heading reads participant flow on every design that carries one.
Three key numbers
66.8 on video, 68.0 in clinic, and the 1.2 point difference with its 95 per cent interval and the margin it sits inside. Each carries the count it came from underneath.
Figures: attendance, age bands and the time course
Figure 1 compares supervised sessions attended, 10.4 against 9.1 of 12. Figure 2 gives the change from baseline by age band for both arms. Figure 3 is the function score at 0, 6 and 12 weeks in both arms on a 0 to 100 scale.
Where the arms differ, what would settle it, conclusions
The age band numbers with their participant counts, the two designs that would answer what this trial cannot, a conclusion that repeats the margin, and three numbered references.

What makes this board work

The margin is stated before the result

The methods block says the 4 point non inferiority margin was agreed before recruitment, and the third stat block shows the 1.2 point difference with its interval of -1.4 to 3.8. A margin quoted after the fact is the standard way a non inferiority claim goes wrong.

The flow reconciles to the analysed numbers

236 screened, 56 not eligible or declined, 180 randomised, 90 per arm, 10 lost and 170 analysed as 84 and 86. Every subtraction holds, and the two arm counts in the stat blocks are the two numbers at the bottom of the flow.

The secondary finding is labelled as underpowered

The in clinic advantage grows from 0.7 to 1.7 points across three age bands, and the board says the trial was not powered to test that. Reporting a subgroup pattern and its status in the same block is what stops it being read as a result.

Questions people ask

What goes on a physiotherapy research poster?

The question, the design and allocation, who was eligible, the programme in enough detail to copy, a participant flow, the primary outcome with its interval, and the limits. For a non inferiority trial, the margin and when it was agreed belong in the methods rather than in the results.

How do you show non inferiority on a poster?

Put the margin in the methods, then show the difference with its confidence interval and say whether the interval sits inside the margin. This board does it in a stat block: 1.2 points, interval -1.4 to 3.8, margin 4 points. A reader can check the claim without doing arithmetic.

Do I need a CONSORT flow on a trial poster?

For a randomised trial, yes. Reviewers look for it and it answers who was excluded and why in less space than a paragraph. Ten of the forty poster designs carry a flow block, so choose the layout before you write, because the block cannot be added to a design that has none.

Should subgroup results go on a poster?

Only with their status attached. This board reports the age band pattern and states that the trial was not powered to test it. A subgroup difference shown without that line is read as a finding, and it is the most common thing a trial poster gets asked about at the board.

How does the poster print and at what resolution?

A0 portrait is 841 by 1189 millimetres from a 1656 by 2340 pixel canvas. The export captures at twice the canvas, 3312 by 4680 pixels, which is about 100 dots per inch at full size. Exports are RGB with no bleed setting, no crop marks and no CMYK conversion.

Can I change the heading on a block?

Section headings are yours to write, which is how the contributions block on this design carries the heading Where the arms differ. Flow, protocol and reference headings are fixed by the layout, so plan the content to suit the words the design prints.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make one like this

Other poster examples

Pharmacy research poster example

A medication review produces a document, and a document is not a change. This board follows every recommendation a pharmacist made across five aged care homes through to a 90 day chart check, with the four headline numbers running as a strip under the title.

Dentistry research poster example

A school varnish programme is usually reported by how many children were seen, which goes up whether or not anyone ends up with fewer holes. This board reports what changed instead: new decayed surfaces per child at 24 months in six programme schools against six matched comparison schools, counted by examiners who did not know which was which.

Microbiology research poster example

A microbiology research poster example should show the sampling plan, how the plates were read and a ranking a reader can trust, because raw colony counts rarely travel between laboratories. This A0 portrait board reports a fictional study of 720 swabs from eight surface types in three hospital wards, with one ranked bar chart of median load, a four bar comparison panel, a single 6x stat block and four cleaning actions.

Want the steps in the builder? Read Add charts and diagrams, then choose the template, theme and size. For everything this generator can do, see the poster maker.

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .