ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016
Regulatory approval of new medical devices: cross sectional study.
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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted stereotactic brain biopsy: systematic review and bibliometric analysis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2018Pooled it
- Re-evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Trial
- The Digital Evolution of the Medical Black Bag: Environmental Scan With Trend Analysis and Horizon Scanning.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A ferrofluid-based haptic guidance system for robot-assisted endovascular procedures.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Competency gaps and institutional challenges for translational research in medical devices: insights from Brazilian researchers.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Suitability of the Current Health Technology Assessment of Innovative Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Devices: Scoping Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Funding of research & innovation in the field of medical technologies and biomedical engineering over the different European framework programmes.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024Article
- Review
- Industry influence in healthcare harms patients: myth or maxim?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2022Review
- Translational research in health technologies: A scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Review of investigational medical devices' clinical trials and regulations in Africa as a benchmark for new innovations.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Review
- Review
- Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery in prostate, uterus, and colorectal procedures: a retrospective population-based study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Review of successful pathways for regulatory approvals in open-field fluorescence-guided surgery.Journal of biomedical optics · 2021Review
- The Future of Cardiovascular Stents: Bioresorbable and Integrated Biosensor Technology.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2019Review
- Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee.BMJ open · 2019Observational
- Improving patient safety during introduction of novel medical devices through cumulative summation analysis.Journal of neurosurgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.