The statistical concept of noninferiority is not exactly intuitive, although in a sense it is the converse of using a statistical test to assert that one treatment is superior to another. Importantly, it is a much different result than one that states that the difference between two treatments is “not statistically significantly different.” This is because a noninferiority trial has been planned from the outset to test the hypothesis that, with at least 95% certainty, the effect of one treatment falls within a narrow, predetermined margin of the other, more established treatment’s effect. In the Driessen et al. study, the boundaries, which were determined by expert consensus, were a 10% difference in remission rates and a 2.6-point difference on HAM-D scores. Although one might quibble with the generosity of these boundaries (i.e., noninferiority studies should use the narrowest boundaries practicable), there is no argument that the observed between-group differences at all time points, on all key dependent measures and on most secondary analyses of subsets of patients, were not clinically meaningful. On the basis of these findings, there is no reason to believe that psychodynamic psychotherapy is a less effective treatment of major depressive disorder than CBT.