Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28228288›Full record

ArticleIndian heart journal

FDA, CE mark or something else?-Thinking fast and slow.

Sundeep Mishra

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

1 author.

Sundeep Mishra

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a robust debate going on among the Medical Device stake-holders whether FDA is better or CE mark or something else. Currently process of obtaining an FDA approval is bogged down by ever-increasing unpredictability, inconsistency, prolonged time, and huge expense but CE mark has its own problems. Historically, the Japanese review process has tended to be the slowest among the big three but recently with the introduction of accelerated review process there has been a significant progress. While the goal of an innovator/manufacturer is to develop, manufacture and market a medical device that addresses an unmet clinical need, the requisite regulatory approval process can be very confusing. Not only there is a whole lot of jargon tossed around by regulatory affair professionals: "substantial equivalence," "PMDA," "CE mark," "Notified body," "510K" and "PMA" but the actual approval process can also be very tardy, inconsistent and expensive.

Indexed as

United States Food and Drug AdministrationDevice ApprovalEquipment SafetyHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalUnited States510 KCE markDevice regulationEC type examinationHarmonization of regulatory approvalsMDANotified bodyPMAPMDASTEDSubstantial equivalence

Identifiers

PMID28228288
PMCPMC5319122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.