Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24531696›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2014

Approaches to assessing the benefits and harms of medical devices for application in surgery.

Stefan Sauerland, Anne Catharina Brockhaus, Naomi Fujita-Rohwerder, Stefano Saad

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Impact of Design on Medical Device Safety.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stefan SauerlandInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Im Mediapark 8, 50670, Cologne, Germany, stefan.sauerland@iqwig.de.
Anne Catharina Brockhaus
Naomi Fujita-Rohwerder
Stefano Saad

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe surgical community and the medical device industry enjoy a fruitful cooperation for the benefit of patients, but during the last years several high-risk products have led to problems and scandals, thus highlighting the need for reforms in European CE marking requirements. In October 2013, the European Parliament voted on a draft regulation on medical devices that intends to replace the current directives in 2014. PURPOSE: This article offers guidance to surgeons on how to select and assess medical devices for clinical use. Examples include artificial sphincters, surgical meshes, as well as single-incision and robot-assisted surgery. It is important that surgeons have a basic understanding of the requirements for CE marking of new medical devices. Because device performance rather than effectiveness is required for European market entry, surgeons (and their patients) are often left with the burden of using potentially harmful devices. In addition, potential problems concerning the safety or effectiveness of approved devices are concealed by the lack of data transparency. Because regulatory reforms were blocked at the European level, many member states will now seek other ways of restricting the use of medical devices with unknown effectiveness. One interesting model in this regard is to link the reimbursement of new medical devices to the conduct of clinical trials.

conclusionsSurgeons should develop a structured multidisciplinary approach to innovation management in their hospitals before using a new high-risk device. The key question is how to strike the right balance between innovation and safety.

Indexed as

Surgical EquipmentSurgical Procedures, OperativeDevice ApprovalDiffusion of InnovationEquipment SafetyHumansRisk Assessment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.