ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2014
Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in perspective.
Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 6-month migration sufficient for evaluation of total knee replacements: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta orthopaedica · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Developing a medical-device formulary for council of health insurance beneficiaries in Saudi Arabia: stakeholder challenges and policy recommendations.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2026Article
- Beyond CE Marking: The Need for Life-Cycle Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices for Patient Safety and Health-System Value.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Multidimensional Index Framework for Evaluating the Regulatory Applicability of ISO 10328 Using a Prosthetic Knee Case Study.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Impact of Regulatory Guidelines on Market Adoption and Implementation of Telehealth for COPD Patients: A Systematic Literature Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 2050: An Arthroplasty Odyssey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections: Understanding the Interplay Between Bacterial Biofilm and Antimicrobial Resistance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Benefit-Risk Reporting for FDA-Cleared Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Devices.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Transforming Healthcare: Intelligent Wearable Sensors Empowered by Smart Materials and Artificial Intelligence.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025Review
- Importance to understand medical device regulations for accelerating clinical translation.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2025Review
- An approach designed to fail deaf children and their parents and how to change it.Harm reduction journal · 2024Review
- More than red tape: exploring complexity in medical device regulatory affairs.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Origins of Racial and Ethnic Bias in Pulmonary Technologies.Annual review of medicine · 2023Review
- Regulatory scripting: Stakeholder participation in food and drug administration medical device advisory meetings.PloS one · 2023Article
- Experiences of medical device innovators as they navigate the regulatory system in Uganda.Frontiers in medical technology · 2023Article
- Exploring the misalignment on the value of further research between payers and manufacturers. A case study on a novel total artificial heart.Health economics · 2022Article
- Article
- Global Trade Pattern of Medical Devices and China's Trade Position: Based on Data From 2001 to 2020.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- An integrated quality and resilience engineering framework in healthcare with Z-number data envelopment analysis.Health care management science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextRecent debates and events have brought into question the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks for medical devices in the United States and Europe to ensure their performance, safety, and quality. This article provides a comparative analysis of medical device regulation in the two jurisdictions, explores current reforms to improve the existing systems, and discusses additional actions that should be considered to fully meet this aim. Medical device regulation must be improved to safeguard public health and ensure that high-quality and effective technologies reach patients.
methodsWe explored and analyzed medical device regulatory systems in the United States and Europe in accordance with the available gray and peer-reviewed literature and legislative documents.
findingsThe two regulatory systems differ in their mandate and orientation, organization, pre- and postmarket evidence requirements, and transparency of process. Despite these differences, both jurisdictions face similar challenges for ensuring that only safe and effective devices reach the market, monitoring real-world use, and exchanging pertinent information on devices with key users such as clinicians and patients. To address these issues, reforms have recently been introduced or debated in the United States and Europe that are principally focused on strengthening regulatory processes, enhancing postmarket regulation through more robust surveillance systems, and improving the traceability and monitoring of devices. Some changes in premarket requirements for devices are being considered.
conclusionsAlthough the current reforms address some of the outstanding challenges in device regulation, additional steps are needed to improve existing policy. We examine a number of actions to be considered, such as requiring high-quality evidence of benefit for medium- and high-risk devices; moving toward greater centralization and coordination of regulatory approval in Europe; creating links between device identifier systems and existing data collection tools, such as electronic health records; and fostering increased and more effective use of registries to ensure safe postmarket use of new and existing devices.
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.