Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27207165›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016

Regulatory approval of new medical devices: cross sectional study.

Hani J Marcus, Christopher J Payne, Archie Hughes-Hallett, Adam P Marcus, Guang-Zhong Yang, Ara Darzi, Dipankar Nandi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Robot-assisted stereotactic brain biopsy: systematic review and bibliometric analysis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. The Future of Cardiovascular Stents: Bioresorbable and Integrated Biosensor Technology.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2019
    Review
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hani J MarcusThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College, London W2 1NY, UK Department of Neurosurgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK hani.marcus10@imperial.ac.uk.
Christopher J PayneThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College, London W2 1NY, UK.
Archie Hughes-HallettThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College, London W2 1NY, UK.
Adam P MarcusFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK hani.marcus10@imperial.ac.uk.
Guang-Zhong YangThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College, London W2 1NY, UK.
Ara DarziThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College, London W2 1NY, UK.
Dipankar NandiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the regulatory approval of new medical devices.

designCross sectional study of new medical devices reported in the biomedical literature. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2004 to identify clinical studies of new medical devices. The search was carried out during this period to allow time for regulatory approval. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if they reported a clinical study of a new medical device and there was no evidence of a previous clinical study in the literature. We defined a medical device according to the US Food and Drug Administration as an "instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article."

main outcome measuresType of device, target specialty, and involvement of academia or of industry for each clinical study. The FDA medical databases were then searched for clearance or approval relevant to the device.

results5574 titles and abstracts were screened, 493 full text articles assessed for eligibility, and 218 clinical studies of new medical devices included. In all, 99/218 (45%) of the devices described in clinical studies ultimately received regulatory clearance or approval. These included 510(k) clearance for devices determined to be "substantially equivalent" to another legally marketed device (78/99; 79%), premarket approval for high risk devices (17/99; 17%), and others (4/99; 4%). Of these, 43 devices (43/99; 43%) were actually cleared or approved before a clinical study was published.

conclusionsWe identified a multitude of new medical devices in clinical studies, almost half of which received regulatory clearance or approval. The 510(k) pathway was most commonly used, and clearance often preceded the first published clinical study.

Indexed as

Academies and InstitutesClinical Studies as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesDevice ApprovalEquipment and SuppliesHealth Care SectorHumansProstheses and Implants

Identifiers

PMID27207165
PMCPMC4875244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.