ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Decision-Making Criteria and Methods for Initiating Late-Stage Clinical Trials in Drug Development From a Multi-Stakeholder Perspective: A Scoping Review.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling Practice of Time-Varying Clearance: Insights from a First-in-Human Study Case.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Trial
- The Governance Gap: Democratizing Drug Development Through Decision Architecture.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Integrated FHIT and IDH2 biomarker profiling predicts lethal sensitivity to DCPS inhibition in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic syndrome.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- An organoid-guided roadmap for precision delivery of epigallocatechin gallate in oral submucous fibrosis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- On the Concepts, Methods, and Use of "Probability of Success" for Drug Development Decision-Making: A Scoping Review.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The decision-making process in drug development involves "go/no-go" decisions, particularly at the transition from early to late-stage trials. While the decisions are solely made by drug developers, they must take into account the perspectives of multiple stakeholders-such as regulatory agencies, HTA bodies, payers, patients, and ethics committees-to ensure well-informed and robust decision-making. These perspectives influence key considerations, including resource allocation, risk mitigation, regulatory compliance, etc. To support this process, quantitative methodologies, including Bayesian and hybrid frequentist-Bayesian approaches, have been introduced to improve decision-making. However, these methodologies often do not fully account for the diverse priorities and needs of all stakeholders. This scoping review examines criteria and methods used in decision-making at the phase II to III transition, with a focus on broadening the probability of success (PoS) concept beyond efficacy alone. Our review explores PoS for different success definitions, such as regulatory approval, market access, financial viability, and competitive performance. Key themes include decision criteria selection, trial design optimization, utility-based approaches, financial metrics, and multi-stakeholder considerations in decision-making. Our findings highlight both the limitations of current methodologies and potential paths forward, including the integration of real-world data (RWD) and advanced analytics. This work complements a companion manuscript by Cetinyurek-Yavuz et al. (2025) providing a detailed review of PoS methodologies focused solely on efficacy, specifically PoS for achieving statistical significance in phase III studies, including definitions, terminologies, and analytical approaches. Together, these studies provide a foundation for advancing late-stage trial decisions toward a more balanced, data-driven, and stakeholder-aligned approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.