ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2017
Medical Device Recalls in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 2002-2015.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk of Recall Associated With Modifications to High-risk Medical Devices Approved Through US Food and Drug Administration Supplements.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Software-related recalls in computer-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo analyze all recalls involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recall database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology device recalls to identify discipline-specific trends that may inform improvements in device safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Recall data on RODs from 2002 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems). Outcomes included determined cause of recall, recall class (severity), quantity in commerce, time until recall termination (date FDA determines recall is complete), 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 Pearson χ
resultsThere were 502 ROD recalls and 9534 other class II device recalls during 2002 to 2015. Most recalls were for external beam devices (66.7%) and planning systems (22.9%), and recall events peaked in 2011. Radiation oncology devices differed significantly from other devices in all recall outcomes (P≤.04). Recall cause was commonly software related (49% vs 10% for other devices). Recall severity was more often moderate among RODs (97.6% vs 87.2%) instead of severe (0.2% vs 4.4%; P<.001). Time from 510(k) market approval to recall was shorter among RODs (P<.001) and progressively shortened over time. Radiation oncology devices had fewer recalled devices in commerce than other devices (P<.001).
conclusionsCompared with other class II devices, RODs experience recalls sooner after market approval and are trending sooner still. Most of these recalls were moderate in severity, and software issues are prevalent. Comprehensive analysis of recall data can identify areas for device improvement, such as better system design among RODs.
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.