ReviewJOR spine2024
How to improve the mechanical safety of a novel spinal implant while saving costs and time.
Review in JOR spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spinal implant failure is associated with prolonged patient suffering, high costs for the medical device industry, and a high economic burden for the health care system. Pre-clinical mechanical testing has great potential to reduce the risk of such failure. However, there are no binding regulations for planning and interpretation of mechanical testing. Therefore, different strategies exist. Mainly for novel implants an option is to start with a structured scientific literature search that forms an objective background for the definition of an implant-specific test plan, the derivation of acceptance criteria and interpretation of the test results. Methods: This paper describes, how a literature-based approach can look like from the initial literature search through the derivation of the test plan and the acceptance criteria, to the final test result evaluation and how this approach can support the proof that the device meets all necessary safety and performance standards. Results: The main advantage of this literature-based approach is that testing and test result interpretation are linked with the loads acting on the individual implant in vivo. In an ideal case, testing is focused on the individual implant in a way that ensures maximum efficiency during the development and approval process combined with maximum insight in safety and effectiveness of the implant. Even comparative implant testing may become obsolete, which is a big advantage if comparative implant and related data are not available. Conclusion: This approach to pre-clinical mechanical testing offers the potential to create a chain of arguments, from literature review through testing to the interpretation of test results. This methodology can significantly enhance testing efficiency, reduce risk of failure, and ultimately prevent unnecessary patient suffering and healthcare costs. By synthesizing scientific insights with regulatory requirements, this review aims to guide clinicians and researchers in improving patient care and advancing device technologies.
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.