Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37388758›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2023

Toxic or not toxic? The specifications of the standard ISO 10993-5 are not explicit enough to yield comparable results in the cytotoxicity assessment of an identical medical device.

Sarah Gruber, Angela Nickel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Sarah Gruber *Department of Product Safety, Johner Institut GmbH, Konstanz, Germany.
Angela Nickel *Department of Regulatory Science, Johner Institut GmbH, Konstanz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Medical device manufacturers are obliged to prove the biocompatibility of their products when they come into contact with the human body. The requirements for the biological evaluation of medical devices are specified by the international standard series ISO 10993. Part five of this series describes the performance of Objective: To determine if the specifications of the standard ISO 10993-5 are explicit to ensure the comparability of test results and, if not, identify potential influencing factors. Methods: An interlaboratory comparison was conducted for the Results: To our surprise only 58 percent of the participating laboratories identified the cytotoxic potential of both materials as expected. Particularly for PVC a considerable variation of the results between the laboratories was observed [mean = 43 ± 30 (SD), min = 0, max = 100]. We showed that ten percent serum supplementation to the extraction medium, as well as longer incubation of the cells with the extract, greatly increased the test sensitivity for PVC. Conclusion: The results clearly show that the specifications set by the ISO 10993-5 are not explicit enough to obtain comparable results for an identical medical device. To set requirements that ensure reliable cytotoxicity assessments, further research will be necessary to identify the best test conditions for specific materials and/or devices and the standard needs to be revised accordingly.

Indexed as

biocompatibilityinterlaboratory comparisoninterlaboratory studyin vitro cytotoxicity testISO 10993-5medical devicesproficiency testing

Identifiers

PMID37388758
PMCPMC10304299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.