Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24597558›Full record

ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2014

Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in perspective.

Corinna Sorenson, Michael Drummond

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 2050: An Arthroplasty Odyssey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Corinna SorensonLondon School of Economics and Political Science.
Michael Drummond

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Device ApprovalEquipment and SuppliesEquipment SafetyEuropeHumansProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administrationcomparative studieshealth care reformmedical devicesregulation

Identifiers

PMID24597558
PMCPMC3955380

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.