Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34448829›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2022

Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices).

A G Fraser, R G H H Nelissen, P Kjærsgaard-Andersen, P Szymański, T Melvin, P Piscoi, CORE-MD Investigators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues.European heart journal. Digital health · 2021
    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

7 authors.

A G FraserSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7083-6995
R G H H NelissenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.
P Kjærsgaard-AndersenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Vejle Hospital, South Danish University, DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark.
P SzymańskiCentre of Postgraduate Medical Education, MSWiA Central Clinical Hospital, ul. Woloska 137, 02-507 Warsaw, Poland.
T MelvinHealthcare Products Regulatory Authority, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, D02 XP77, Ireland.
P PiscoiHealth Technology Unit B6, Directorate General for Health (DG SANTE), European Commission, Rue Breydel 2-10, B-1040, Brussels, Belgium.
CORE-MD Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the European Union (EU) the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, whereas authorizing the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralized to independent 'conformity assessment' organizations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the medical device directives, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details-which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE-MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024; here we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe.

Indexed as

CardiologyEuropeEuropean UnionHumansClinical investigationsEvidence-based practiceMedical devicesRegistries

Identifiers

PMID34448829
PMCPMC9071523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.