SynthesisTrials2026
The use of complex clinical trials: a regulatory review.
Synthesis in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplex clinical trials offer flexibility in evaluating multiple treatments or diseases simultaneously. These trials often feature adaptive designs, common controls, and the potential to add new arms. However, the increased complexity raises methodological challenges particularly regarding multiple testing or the adequate choice of control groups. Despite guidance from regulatory bodies like the European Medicines Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, uncertainties remain about the regulatory acceptance of these trials.
methodsThis systematic review examines scientific advice procedures of products in the remit of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut for complex clinical trials to highlight key concerns and regulatory feedback. We identified 30 scientific advice procedures corresponding to 29 different complex clinical trials.
resultsOur findings reveal an increasing number of complex trial designs proposed by applicants. A lack of multiplicity control due to multiple arms was generally considered acceptable by regulators in exploratory trials and if cohorts can be considered independent. Additionally, the use of common control groups is frequently proposed by applicants. The review underscores the importance of pre-planning for new treatment arms, appropriate multiplicity control, and the definition of control groups in trial designs.
conclusionOverall, our findings suggest that regulatory concerns regarding complex trials largely align with those in traditional trial designs, though their complexity requires careful, case-by-case consideration. Early engagement with regulatory agencies can be crucial to ensure the successful design and implementation of these trials.
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.