Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28463163›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2017

Medical Device Recalls in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 2002-2015.

Michael J Connor, Kathryn Tringale, Vitali Moiseenko, Deborah C Marshall, Kevin Moore, Laura Cervino, Todd Atwood, Derek Brown, Arno J Mundt, Todd Pawlicki and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

12 authors.

Michael J ConnorDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California.
Kathryn TringaleDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Vitali MoiseenkoDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Deborah C MarshallDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Kevin MooreDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Laura CervinoDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Todd AtwoodDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Derek BrownDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Arno J MundtDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Todd PawlickiDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Abram RechtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jona A Hattangadi-GluthDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: jhattangadi@ucsd.edu.

Funding

VIRAL MALIGNANCYP30CA023100 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Jing Yang · 1985 to 2026
$124.9M
UC San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR001442 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI FIRESTEIN, GARY S, HOGARTH, MICHAEL · 2015 to 2024
$88.3M
San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR000100 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI FIRESTEIN, GARY S · 2012 to 2015
$19.7M
UC San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteKL2TR001444 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DEPP, COLIN A. · 2015 to 2024
$15.4M
UC San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteTL1TR001443 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DEPP, COLIN A. · 2015 to 2019
$3.4M
San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteKL2TR000099 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI FIRESTEIN, GARY S · 2012 to 2014
$1.1M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000099NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001444NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001443NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000100NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001442NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023100
6 · The paper itself

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

Medical Device RecallsBrachytherapyChi-Square DistributionDatabases, FactualEquipment and SuppliesLinear ModelsProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingRadiation OncologyRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSoftwareStatistics, NonparametricTime FactorsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID28463163
PMCPMC5518627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.