ArticlePloS one2024
MedTech start-ups: A comprehensive scoping review of current research trends and future directions.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Supporting translation with early health technology assessment: from definition to action.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical start-ups (MedTech) significantly contribute to the development and commercialization of innovative healthcare solutions, driving advancements in technology, enhancing treatment effectiveness, and supporting public health. This study explores the main themes and concepts related to MedTech start-ups, examines the research methods used, and identifies major gaps in the literature. A scoping literature review was performed by searching the Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for publications from 2012 to 2023, focusing on MedTech start-ups in titles, abstracts, and keywords. References were analyzed using the Bibliometrix package in R, and a coupling network analysis was conducted, visualizing results on a Coupling Map to identify key research themes and gaps. The research identified 480 unique articles on MedTech start-ups. After removing duplicates and following a PRISMA-based assessment, 79 articles were included in the review. The studies predominantly focused on organizations, including start-ups and Venture Capital funds (46%). Most articles (60%) used qualitative methods, 25% employed mixed methods, and 15% used quantitative methods. Geographically, 63% of articles focused on a single country, primarily the USA (35%), followed by Iran, Sweden, Switzerland, China, and Japan (2-4% each). Coupling analysis identified five topic clusters: crowdfunding for medical research, innovation in medical technology, new product development, digital start-ups, and the venture capital industry. This review highlights the significant role of MedTech start-ups in advancing healthcare innovations despite challenges like regulatory hurdles and high capital requirements. The literature emphasizes the importance of collaboration among universities, industry, and government for successful commercialization. The geographic concentration in the USA indicates a need for more inclusive research. Crowdfunding and venture capital emerge as crucial funding sources, suggesting strategies to mitigate risks and enhance innovation success.
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.