ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2017
Adverse Events Involving Radiation Oncology Medical Devices: Comprehensive Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 1991 to 2015.
Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protective Effects of Propolis and Chitosan Nanoparticles against Ibuprofen-Induced Hepatotoxicity in Albino Rats.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Adverse Events Associated With Radium-223 in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Disproportionality Analysis of FDA Data Reflecting Worldwide Utilization.Clinical genitourinary cancer · 2020Article
- Master Protocol Trial Design for Efficient and Rational Evaluation of Novel Therapeutic Oncology Devices.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Review
- Adverse Events in Facial Implant Surgery and Associated Malpractice Litigation.JAMA facial plastic surgery · 2018Article
- A Cross-sectional Analysis of Adverse Events and Litigation for Injectable Fillers.JAMA facial plastic surgery · 2018Article
- Medical Device Recalls in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 2002-2015.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2017Article
- Nature of Medical Malpractice Claims Against Radiation Oncologists.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRadiation oncology relies on rapidly evolving technology and highly complex processes. The US Food and Drug Administration collects reports of adverse events related to medical devices. We sought to characterize all events involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration's postmarket surveillance Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology devices. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MAUDE data on RODs from 1991 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems) and 5 device problem categories (software, mechanical, electrical, user error, and dose delivery impact). Outcomes included whether the device was evaluated by the manufacturer, adverse event type, remedial action, problem code, device age, and time since 510(k) approval. Descriptive statistics were performed with linear regression of time-series data. Results for RODs were compared with those for other devices by the Pearson χ
resultsThere were 4234 ROD and 4,985,698 other device adverse event reports. Adverse event reports increased over time, and events involving RODs peaked in 2011. Most ROD reports involved external beam therapy (50.8%), followed by brachytherapy (24.9%) and treatment planning systems (21.6%). The top problem types were software (30.4%), mechanical (20.9%), and user error (20.4%). RODs differed significantly from other devices in each outcome (P<.001). RODs were more likely to be evaluated by the manufacturer after an event (46.9% vs 33.0%) but less likely to be recalled (10.5% vs 37.9%) (P<.001). Device age and time since 510(k) approval were shorter among RODs (P<.001).
conclusionsCompared with other devices, RODs may experience adverse events sooner after manufacture and market approval. Close postmarket surveillance, improved software design, and manufacturer-user training may help mitigate these events.
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.