ReviewBMC public health2012
Medical device assessment: scientific evidence examined by the French national agency for health - a descriptive study.
Review in BMC public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defining the clinician's role in early health technology assessment during medical device innovation - a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2019Pooled it
- The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring.Nature medicine · 2024Review
- Gaps in the evidence underpinning high-risk medical devices in Europe at market entry, and potential solutions.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Review
- Article
- Clinical research challenges in the era of cardiovascular medical devices.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2016Article
- Effects of procurement practices on quality of medical device or service received: a qualitative study comparing countries.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Contrasting clinical evidence for market authorisation of cardio-vascular devices in Europe and the USA: a systematic analysis of 10 devices based on Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2014Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScientific evidence supports decision-making on the use of implantable medical devices (IMDs) in clinical practice, but IMDs are thought to be far less investigated than drugs. In the USA, studies have shown that approval process of high-risk medical devices was often based on insufficiently robust studies, suggesting that evidence prior to marketing may not be adequate. This study aimed to ascertain level of evidence available for IMDs access to reimbursement in France.
methodsThe objective was to examine the scientific evidence used for IMDs assessment by the French National Authority for Health. We collected all public documents summarising supportive clinical data and opinions concerning IMDs issued in 2008. An opinion qualifies the expected benefit (EB) of the IMD assessed as sufficient or insufficient, and if sufficient, the level of improvement of the expected benefit (IEB) on a scale from major (level I) to no improvement (level V). For each opinion, the study with the highest level of evidence of efficacy data, and its design were collected, or, where no studies were available, any other data sources used to establish the opinion.
resultsOne hundred and two opinions were analysed, with 72 reporting at least one study used for assessment (70.6%). When considering the study with the highest level of evidence: 34 were clinical non-comparative studies (47.2%); 29 were clinical comparative studies of which 25 randomised controlled trials (40.3%); 5 were meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (6.9%); and 4 were systematic literature reviews (5.6%). The opinions were significantly different according to the study design (p < 0.001). The most frequent design for insufficient EB, IEB level V and IEB level IV was a non-comparative study (10/19, 52.6%; 15/24, 62.5%; and 8/15, 53.3%; respectively). For the 30 opinions with no supporting clinical study, 16 (53.3%) were based on an expert-based process, 9 (30.0%) were based on the conclusions of a previous opinion (all concluding IEB level V), and 5 (16.7%) reported no data (concluding insufficient EB for 4 and IEB level V for 1).
conclusionsThis study confirmed that level of evidence of clinical evaluation of IMDs is low and needs to be improved.
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.