ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Overview of Regulatory Guidelines Related to Methods and Models for Small Populations.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of approaches and related guidelines from the EMA, FDA, and ICH that are relevant for obtaining clinical evidence for small populations to support regulatory decision making. The approaches are grouped into three categories: (1) maximizing the attainable sample size, (2) adapting the trial design to deal with a small sample size, and (3) including external information, while also examining the role of modeling. Guidelines for clinical trials, guidelines specifically for small populations, as well as guidelines that include the use of modeling to support clinical evidence were included in the review. A recurring theme throughout the guidelines is the critical importance of the clinical context, affecting both the evidentiary standard and which approaches and models are acceptable. Two key gaps were identified: (1) guidance on Bayesian approaches is limited, and (2) there is no clear guidance on how to synthesize evidence across different modalities, such as trial results and Real-World Data, from both a practical and regulatory perspective.
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.