ArticleJAMA network open2021
Quantification of US Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval Statements for High-Risk Medical Devices With Pediatric Age Indications.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-invasive venous waveform analysis and the IntraVAscular volume Number (IVAN) track acute hemorrhage and volume overload in a piglet model.Research square · 2026Article
- A national strategic framework for developing medical devices for children.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Describing Inconsistencies in Pediatric Labeling of Medical Devices.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Toward governance of artificial intelligence in pediatric healthcare.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Economic Barriers to Interventional Cardiology Care for Adults and Children With Congenital Heart Disease and Potential Policy Solutions: A SCAI Policy Statement.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Proceedings from The Consortium for Technology & Innovation in Pediatrics (CTIP) 2024 Annual Pediatric Device Innovation Symposium.BMC proceedings · 2025Article
- Bridging the Gap in FDA Approval for Pediatric Neuromodulation Devices.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Minimal Access in Pediatric Surgery: An Overview on Progress towards Dedicated Instrument Developments and Anesthesiologic Advances to Enhance Safe Completion of Procedures.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evidence from clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children: a scoping review.Pediatric research · 2024Article
- Bringing FAIRness to FDA data through visualization.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Technical, Ethical, Legal, and Societal Challenges With Digital Twin Systems for the Management of Chronic Diseases in Children and Young People.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Medical device companies submit premarket approval (PMA) statements to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of the highest-risk class of devices. Devices indicated for the pediatric population that use the PMA pathway have not been well characterized or analyzed. Objective: To identify and characterize high-risk devices with pediatric age indications derived from PMA statements. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study of PMA statements, those statements containing the words indicated or intended for medical devices listed in the FDA PMA database as of February 2020 were retrieved. Age indications were manually annotated in these approval statements via PubAnnotation. Based on the PMA identification from the PMA statements, device metadata including product codes, regulation numbers, advisory panels, and approval dates were queried. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was discernment of the distribution of devices indicated for the pediatric population (neonate, infant, child, and adolescent). Secondary measures included outlining the clinical specialties, device types, and lag time between the initial approval date and the first date of an approval statement with a pediatric indication for generic device categories. Results: A total of 297 documents for 149 unique devices were analyzed. Based on the manual age annotations, 102 devices with a pediatric indication, 10 with a neonate age indication, 32 with an infant age indication, 60 with a child age indication, and 94 with an adolescent age indication were identified. For indications for patients from age 17 to 18 years, the number of devices available nearly doubled from 42 devices to 81 devices. Although more than half of the surveyed devices had a pediatric age indication, many were available only for a limited range of the pediatric population (age 18-21 years). For indications for patients from age 0 to 17 years, the mean (SD) number of clinical specialties at each age was 7.27 (1.4), and 12 clinical specialties were represented from ages 18 to 21 years. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study on device PMA statements, a gap was identified in both quantity and diversity of high-risk devices indicated for the pediatric population. Because the current scarcity of pediatric devices may limit therapeutic possibilities for children, this study represents a step toward quantifying this scarcity and identifying clinical specialties with the greatest need for pediatric device innovation and may help inform future device development efforts.
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.