Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39144660›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

More than red tape: exploring complexity in medical device regulatory affairs.

Yu Han, Aaron Ceross, Jeroen Bergmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Yu HanDepartment of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Aaron CerossDepartment of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jeroen BergmannDepartment of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This study investigates the complexity of regulatory affairs in the medical device industry, a critical factor influencing market access and patient care. Methods: Through qualitative research, we sought expert insights to understand the factors contributing to this complexity. The study involved semi-structured interviews with 28 professionals from medical device companies, specializing in various aspects of regulatory affairs. These interviews were analyzed using a mix of qualitative coding and natural language processing (NLP) techniques. Results: The findings reveal key sources of complexity within the regulatory landscape, divided into five domains: (1) regulatory language complexity, (2) intricacies within the regulatory process, (3) global-level complexities, (4) database-related considerations, and (5) product-level issues. Discussion: The participants highlighted the need for strategies to streamline regulatory compliance, enhance interactions between regulatory bodies and industry players, and develop adaptable frameworks for rapid technological advancements. Emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration and increased transparency, the study concludes that these elements are vital for establishing coherent and effective regulatory procedures in the medical device sector.

Indexed as

complexitymedical devicesnatural language processingopen codingqualitative analysisregulationregulatory affairstopic modeling

Identifiers

PMID39144660
PMCPMC11322972

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.