Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28058060›Full record

ArticleLaw, innovation and technology2015

New risks inadequately managed: the case of smart implants and medical device regulation.

Shawn H E Harmon, Gill Haddow, Leah Gilman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Law, innovation and technology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Autonomous Implants.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Improve Integration of In Vitro Biofilm Body of Knowledge to Support Clinical Breakthroughs in Surgical Site Infection.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2021
    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

3 authors.

Shawn H E HarmonSchool of Law, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Gill HaddowSchool of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Leah GilmanSchool of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 100561
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many emerging technologies are associated with 'risk'. While the concept of risk is protean, it is usually conceived of as the potential of something damaging or harmful happening. Thus, risks are a primary target of many regulatory regimes. In this article, after articulating an understanding of risk, we assess the European medical devices regulatory regime from a risk perspective, focusing on its handling of 'smart' implantable medical devices. In doing so, we discuss the empirical evidence obtained from expert participants in the Implantable Smart Technologies Project, which evidence is framed around three risk typologies: materiality, geography and modality. We conclude that none of these risks are sufficiently addressed within the existing regime, which falls down not just from a standards perspective, but also from the perspective of transparency and balance.

Indexed as

emerging technologiesEuropean UnionImplantable Smart Technologies Projectmedical devicesrisk

Identifiers

PMID28058060
PMCPMC5207313

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.