ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Enhancing insight into regional differences: hierarchical linear models in multiregional clinical trials.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe planning and analysis of multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) has increased in the pharmaceutical industry to facilitate global research and development. The ICH E17 guideline emphasizes the importance of considering the potential for regional differences, which may arise from shared intrinsic and extrinsic factors among patients within the same region in MRCTs. These differences remain as challenges in the design and analysis of MRCTs.
methodsWe introduce and investigate hierarchical linear models (HLMs) that account for regional differences by incorporating known factors as covariates and unknown factors as random effects. Extending previous studies, our HLMs incorporate random effects in both the intercept and slope, enhancing the model's flexibility. The proposed figures that depict the observed distribution of the primary endpoint and covariates facilitate understanding the proposed models. Moreover, we investigate the test statistics for the overall treatment effect and derive the required sample size under the HLM, considering both a fixed number of regions and real-world budgetary constraints.
resultsOur simulation studies show that when the number of regions is sufficient, HLM with random effects in the intercept and slope provides empirical type I error rates and power close to the nominal level. However, the estimate for the regional variabilities remains challenging for the small number of the regions. Budgetary constraints impact the required number of regions, while the required number of patients per region is influenced by the variability of treatment effects across regions.
conclusionsWe offer a comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing regional differences in the primary endpoint for MRCTs. Through the proposed strategies with figures and required sample size considering the budget constraints, designs for MRCT could be more efficient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.