Postmarket medical device safety: moving beyond voluntary reporting.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A Multidimensional Index Framework for Evaluating the Regulatory Applicability of ISO 10328 Using a Prosthetic Knee Case Study.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
   Review
2. The failure pattern for the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: a single-institution case series with literature review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025
   Review
3. Establishment of a medical device adverse event management system for hospitals.BMC health services research · 2022
   Article
4. Impact of early surveillance on safety signal identification in the CathPCI DELTA study.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2020
   Article
5. Active surveillance for implanted devices: strength in numbers.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices.2018

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as