ArticleBMJ quality & safety2018
Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The value of qualitative research in randomized controlled trials involving drugs and medical devices: a systematic mapping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of knowledge, attitude, and practice survey on materiovigilance among healthcare professionals.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring qualitative methods reported in registered trials and their yields (EQUITY): systematic review.Trials · 2018Pooled it
- Variability in Vascular Access Device Use, Dwell Time and Failure: Insights From Routine Nursing Documentation in a Multicentre Cohort Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
- Navigating Medical Device Safety: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Regulatory Directions.Drug safety · 2026Review
- The Challenges of Vascular Implants: Regulatory Strategies and Biological Responses.Small science · 2025Review
- Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding reporting of adverse events due to medical devices among healthcare workers in Gujarat.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2025Observational
- The failure pattern for the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: a single-institution case series with literature review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Overcoming failure: improving acceptance and success of implanted neural interfaces.Bioelectronic medicine · 2025Review
- Safe AI-enabled digital health technologies need built-in open feedback.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Challenges and dynamics in reporting medical device incidents: a qualitative study.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Scoping review on regulation, implementation and postmarket surveillance of medical devices.PloS one · 2025Article
- A MAUDE database analysis on the new generation of active bone conduction hearing implants.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Gaps in the evidence underpinning high-risk medical devices in Europe at market entry, and potential solutions.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Review
- Regulatory scripting: Stakeholder participation in food and drug administration medical device advisory meetings.PloS one · 2023Article
- Investigation and analysis of four countries' recalls of osteosynthesis implants and joint replacement implants from 2011 to 2021.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Failure mode effect and criticality analysis of ultrasound device by classification tracking.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Impact of Design on Medical Device Safety.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2020Review
- Reporting Adverse Medical Device Events Is an Obligation and Not a "Fashion".Obesity surgery · 2019Article
- Experiences of frontline nurses with adverse medical events in a regional referral hospital in northern Ghana: a cross-sectional study.Tropical medicine and health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostmarket surveillance of medical devices is reliant on physician reporting of adverse medical device events (AMDEs). Little is known about factors that influence whether and how physicians report AMDEs, an essential step in developing behaviour change interventions. This study explored factors that influence AMDE reporting.
methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with physicians who differed by specialties that implant cardiovascular and orthopaedic devices prone to AMDEs, geography and years in practice. Participants were asked if and how they reported AMDEs, and the influencing factors. Themes were identified inductively using constant comparative technique, and reviewed and discussed by the research team on four occasions.
resultsTwenty-two physicians of varying specialty, region, organisation and career stage perceived AMDE reporting as unnecessary, not possible or futile due to multiple factors. Physicians viewed AMDEs as an expected part of practice that they could manage by switching to different devices or developing work-around strategies for problematic devices. Physician beliefs and behaviour were reinforced by limited healthcare system capacity and industry responsiveness. The healthcare system lacked processes and infrastructure to detect, capture, share and act on information about AMDEs, and constrained device choice through purchasing contracts. The device industry did not respond to reports of AMDEs from physicians or improve their products based on such reports. As a result, participants said they used devices that were less than ideal for a given patient, leading to suboptimal patient outcomes.
conclusionsThere may be little point in solely educating or incentivising individual physicians to report AMDEs unless environmental conditions are conducive to doing so. Future research should explore policies that govern AMDEs and investigate how to design and implement postmarket surveillance systems.
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.