Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29365020›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2018

Transparency and Dermatologic Device Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Harib H Ezaldein, Jeffrey F Scott, Emily S Yin, Alessandra Ventura, Nicholaas P DeRuyter, David J Leffell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Postmarket Modifications of High-risk Plastic Surgery Devices.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020
    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

6 authors.

Harib H EzaldeinDepartment of Dermatology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Jeffrey F ScottDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
Emily S YinDepartment of Dermatology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Alessandra VenturaDepartment of Dermatology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Nicholaas P DeRuyterDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle.
David J LeffellDepartment of Dermatology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration approves Class III medical devices via the premarket approval pathway, often requiring clinical data on safety and efficacy. Manufacturers can submit incremental device changes via supplemental applications, which are not subjected to such vetting measures and can cause understudied changes that lead to drift from a device's original design. Objectives: To characterize the postapproval changes to Class III dermatologic devices and to evaluate inconsistencies in the use of the premarket approval pathway. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a cross-sectional retrospective cohort analysis of a public US Food and Drug Administration database for premarket approval of devices. Included were dermatologic devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 1980, and November 1, 2016, through the premarket pathway for device approval. Main Outcomes and Measures: Original devices were identified, and their supplements were characterized chronologically, by review track, and by modification category. Results: The 27 dermatologic devices studied consisted of 14 injectables, 11 photodynamic therapies, a dermal replacement matrix, and a diagnostic imaging instrument. Supplemental applications are increasingly used: the data-requiring panel-track pathway was the least common approach (2.8% [16 of 562 supplements]), while the 30-day track, which does not require clinical data, was most frequently used (42.5% [239 of 562 supplements]). Four devices (14.8%) underwent low-risk recalls (Class II or Class III), and 10 devices (37.0%) were voluntarily withdrawn. Conclusions and Relevance: As manufacturers make increasing use of supplemental applications, minor device changes may occur without supporting clinical data, which could pose a safety risk to patients.

Indexed as

Device ApprovalEquipment and SuppliesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCosmetic TechniquesCross-Sectional StudiesDermal FillersDermatologyEquipment SafetyHumansLasersPhotochemotherapyRetrospective StudiesSkin, ArtificialSkin DiseasesUnited StatesDermal Fillers

Identifiers

PMID29365020
PMCPMC5885836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.