Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25285025›Full record

ReviewMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2014

Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices.

Alain Bernard, Michel Vaneau, Isabelle Fournel, Hubert Galmiche, Patrice Nony, Jean Michel Dubernard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Commentary on "Application of Double-Tube Negative Pressure Drainage in Repair of Refractory Wounds".Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Commentary on "The Safety and Effectiveness of a Self-Made Negative Pressure Suction Device in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds".Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Random effects modellingFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Generating evidence for new high-risk medical devices.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Alain BernardDepartment of Thoracic Surgery CHU Bocage, Dijon, France.
Michel VaneauDepartment for Assessment of Medical Devices, HAS (French National Authority of Health), Saint-Denis La Plaine, France.
Isabelle FournelCentre of Epidemiology of the Populations, Burgundy University, Dijon, France.
Hubert GalmicheDepartment for Assessment of Medical Devices, HAS (French National Authority of Health), Saint-Denis La Plaine, France.
Patrice NonyDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Lyon University CNRS, Lyon, France ; Laboratory of Biometry and Biology, CNRS, Lyon, France.
Jean Michel DubernardHAS Board (French National Authority of Health), Saint-Denis La Plaine, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical evidence available for the assessment of medical devices (MDs) is frequently insufficient. New MDs should be subjected to high quality clinical studies to demonstrate their benefit to patients. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the study design reaching the highest level of evidence in order to demonstrate the efficacy of a new MD. However, the clinical context of some MDs makes it difficult to carry out a conventional RCT. The objectives of this review are to present problems related to conducting conventional RCTs and to identify other experimental designs, their limitations, and their applications. A systematic literature search was conducted for the period January 2000 to July 2012 by searching medical bibliographic databases. Problems related to conducting conventional RCTs of MDs were identified: timing the assessment, eligible population and recruitment, acceptability, blinding, choice of comparator group, and learning curve. Other types of experimental designs have been described. Zelen's design trials and randomized consent design trials facilitate the recruitment of patients, but can cause ethical problems to arise. Expertise-based RCTs involve randomization to a team that specializes in a given intervention. Sometimes, the feasibility of an expertise-based randomized trial may be greater than that of a conventional trial. Cross-over trials reduce the number of patients, but are not applicable when a learning curve is required. Sequential trials have the advantage of allowing a trial to be stopped early depending on the results of first inclusions, but they require an independent committee. Bayesian methods combine existing information with information from the ongoing trial. These methods are particularly useful in situations where the number of subjects is small. The disadvantage is the risk of including erroneous prior information. Other types of experimental designs exist when conventional trials cannot always be applied to the clinical development of MDs.

Indexed as

assessmentclinical developmentmedical devicerandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID25285025
PMCPMC4181748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.