Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31845212›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2020

Medical Devices: Definition, Classification, and Regulatory Implications.

Jeffrey K Aronson, Carl Heneghan, Robin E Ferner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Perspectives: Delving into the experience of a nurse inventor.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Jeffrey K AronsonCentre for Evidence Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. jeffrey.aronson@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1139-655X
Carl HeneghanCentre for Evidence Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Robin E FernerWest Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reactions, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose the following definition of a medical device: "A contrivance designed and manufactured for use in healthcare, and not solely medicinal or nutritional." Current regulatory classifications of medical devices are complex and designed primarily for regulators. We propose a simpler classification, based on (1) the site of application of the device, (2) the time scale of its use, and (3) whether it has an external power source. The regulation of medical devices is less well developed than the regulation of medicinal products, which it could follow more closely. In particular, devices that incorporate medicines should be required to meet the same regulatory standards as medicinal products. This would remove the anomaly that some delivery systems that incorporate medicines are classified as devices while other similar systems that deliver the same medicines are classified as medicinal products. Some improvements might also result from more widespread use of registries, such as those used for prosthetic joint replacements. Registries would allow both a prospective examination of the performance of high-risk devices and a retrospective analysis when signals from other sources of information suggest problems. Those who apply for a marketing authorization for a new device should have to assure regulators of its quality of manufacture, safety, and efficacy before licensing. Even the most straightforward device should be shown to be useable in practice. Trials on patients, or at least simulations of use in the real world, should be practicable for most devices.

Indexed as

Equipment and SuppliesEquipment SafetyEuropean UnionHumansMedical Device LegislationUnited States

Identifiers

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.