ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2020
Changing Device Regulations in the European Union: Impact on Research, Innovation and Clinical Practice.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical added value of 3D printed patient-specific guides in orthopedic surgery (excluding knee arthroplasty): a systematic review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
- From Concept to Clinic: Pre-Clinical Testing and Regulatory Considerations in Spine Implant Development.JOR spine · 2026Review
- A Digital Clinical Records Versus Paper Records in Dental Practice: A Comparative Study.BioMed research international · 2025Article
- Exploring Impediments Imposed by the Medical Device Regulation EU 2017/745 on Software as a Medical Device.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Acetabular Revision with McMinn Cup: Development and Application of a Patient-Specific Targeting Device.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Challenges for Manufacturers of the Increased Clinical Evaluation in the European Medical Device Regulations: A Quantitative Study.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Article
- Expanding Quality by Design Principles to Support 3D Printed Medical Device Development Following the Renewed Regulatory Framework in Europe.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- External validation of the Tyrolean hip arthroplasty registry.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Critical Factors and Economic Methods for Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Medical Device Industry.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUp until 2017, medical devices were placed on the European Union's (EU) single market in accordance with either Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC for general medical devices or Medical Device Directive 90/385/EEC for active implantable devices. However, some devices that complied with these directives still failed catastrophically. In the orthopaedic device field, these failures were most pronounced in metal-on-metal hip devices causing severe patient morbidity with increased need for revision surgery which had unpredictable outcomes. Subsequently, the newly introduced Medical Device Regulations 2017/745 are aimed at addressing patient safety based on previous experience and thorough device assessment prior to and post-release on the EU single market; to accommodate for this they are substantially different (and more stringent). This poses a greater challenge for manufacturers and regulatory bodies in terms of time and resources.
methodsA review of the EU directives and published literature was undertaken. This review provides the rationale behind this change and its potential impact on research, industry, and clinical practice. DISCUSSION: The change in legal requirements for the medical devices to be put on the EU single market ultimately leads to increased patient safety, which is supported by clinical professionals. The new requirements for data transparency, post-market surveillance, and implant information availability increase the chance of catastrophic failure prevention. However, the exact method of implementation remains uncertain, and some essential rules on the data requirements for compliance have not yet been published by the EU. These limitations may limit the availability of products on the market including withdrawal of existing devices and a decrease in new medical device innovation. It is speculated that lack of new technologies within the medical device area can dramatically affect patient safety itself by not allowing potentially safer materials and methods on the EU single market, as the focus for the manufacturer becomes existing devices.
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.