Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35989873›Full record

ArticleBMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies2022

Creation of objective performance criteria among medical devices.

Laura Elisabeth Gressler, Danica Marinac-Dabic, Susan dosReis, Philip Goodney, C Daniel Mullins, Fadia Shaya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Laura Elisabeth GresslerDivision of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2042-2174
Danica Marinac-DabicCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Susan dosReisDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Philip GoodneyVascular Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3973-3506
C Daniel MullinsDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Fadia ShayaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Expanding Translational Research in ArkansasUL1TR003107 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI JAMES, LAURA P · 2019 to 2023
$21.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Objective performance criteria (OPC) may serve as a tool to expedite the approval process and continue active surveillance of class III medical devices. Thus far, published guidance on the creation of OPC has been clinical area-specific. This study aimed to capture reflections from key stakeholders on the creation of OPC that may serve as a precursor for a formalized conceptual framework within the USA. Design: Reflections from key stakeholders and guidance from an advisory committee were captured to gain an understanding of the elements that are crucial to the generation of OPC. Setting: A non-probability sampling method using the purposive sampling strategy was employed to identify relevant stakeholders for engagement in semi-structured, open-ended, concept elicitation discussions. Participants: Stakeholders involved in the generation of OPC. Main outcome measures: Elements and themes regarding the priorities of, experiences with, roles within and perceived challenges associated with OPC creation captured through a phenomenological approach. Results: A total of 27 participants were engaged to represent the following contributors: representatives of registries, health systems, health technology assessment bodies, clinicians, device application reviewers, payers, patients, patient representatives, patient caregivers, device manufacturers, data coordinators, data analysts and data informaticians. Consensus was achieved on the five core elements: (1) identification of medical devices, (2) engagement of key stakeholders, (3) selection of data source, (4) performance of appropriate statistical analyses and (5) reporting of findings. The engagement of key stakeholders (38%) was cited most frequently as the most important core element. Access to meaningful and high-quality data sources (47%) was the most frequently mentioned challenge. Conclusions: The reflections from the participants identified five elements to be considered when generating an OPC within class III medical devices and may provide the needed foundation for the development of official guidance on OPC generation.

Indexed as

active surveillanceconsensusdeviceshealth services researchmethodology

Identifiers

PMID35989873
PMCPMC9345051

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.