Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26801401›Full record

ArticleHeart rhythm2016

Proceedings from Heart Rhythm Society's emerging technologies forum, Boston, MA, May 12, 2015.

Emily P Zeitler, Sana M Al-Khatib, David Slotwiner, Uday N Kumar, Paul Varosy, David R Van Wagoner, Gregory M Marcus, Fred M Kusumoto, Laura Blum

Abstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in Heart rhythm, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Emily P ZeitlerDuke Clinical Research Institute; Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: emily.zeitler@duke.edu.
Sana M Al-KhatibDuke Clinical Research Institute; Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina.
David SlotwinerWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Uday N KumarBiodesign Program, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Paul VarosyUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
David R Van WagonerCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Research University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Gregory M MarcusUniversity of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Fred M KusumotoMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
Laura BlumHeart Rhythm Society, Washington, District of Columbia.

Funding

Postdoctoral Training in Cardiovascular Clinical ResearchT32HL069749 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MARK, DANIEL B · 2003 to 2023
$6.7M
Functional Genomics of Atrial Fibrillation in Human AtriaR01HL111314 · NHLBI · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI BARNARD, JOHN, CHUNG, MINA KAY · 2012 to 2019
$6.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL111314NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL069749
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physicians are in an excellent position to significantly contribute to medical device innovation, but the process of bringing an idea to the bedside is complex. To begin to address these perceived barriers, the Heart Rhythm Society convened a forum of stakeholders in medical device innovation in conjunction with the 2015 Heart Rhythm Society Annual Scientific Sessions. The forum facilitated open discussion on medical device innovation, including obstacles to physician involvement and possible solutions. This report is based on the themes that emerged. First, physician innovators must take an organized approach to identifying unmet clinical needs and potential solutions. Second, extensive funds, usually secured through solicitation for investment, are often required to achieve meaningful progress, developing an idea into a device. Third, planning for regulatory requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is essential. In addition to these issues, intellectual property and overall trends in health care, including international markets, are critically relevant considerations for the physician innovator. Importantly, there are a number of ways in which professional societies can assist physician innovators to navigate the complex medical device innovation landscape, bring clinically meaningful devices to market more quickly, and ultimately improve patient care. These efforts include facilitating interaction between potential collaborators through scientific meetings and other gatherings; collecting, evaluating, and disseminating state-of-the-art scientific information; and representing the interests of members in interactions with regulators and policymakers.

Indexed as

CardiologyEquipment DesignHeart RateHumansInventionsSocieties, MedicalUnited StatesInnovationMedical deviceProfessional societies

Identifiers

PMID26801401
PMCPMC4724379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.