Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39845291›Full record

ArticleSurgery in practice and science2023

Review of approvals and recalls of US specific medical devices in general and plastic surgery.

Aashka Shah, Michelle M Olson, Joseph M Maurice

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery in practice and science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Aashka ShahCarle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Michelle M OlsonCarle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Joseph M MauriceDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Medical devices in the United States can be FDA approved either by the premarket notification (510(k)) or premarket approval process (PMA). Applications for PMA are more intensive than 510(k). This study aims to compare the recall rates of 510(k) and PMA General and Plastic Surgery (Surgery) devices and to educate physicians about potential flaws in the approval process. Methods: This is a retrospective case study utilizing the public FDA Medical Device Recalls database. Inclusion criteria for this study includes devices approved by the Surgery Devices Panel via 510(k) or PMA in the United States between 11/2/2002- 11/9/2021. Results: Out of 8,985 devices, 81% of surgery devices were approved by 510(k) while 19% were approved by PMA. The recall rate for devices approved by PMA and 510(k) was 2.3% and 11.6% respectively ( Discussion and Conclusion: Surgical devices were overwhelmingly approved with 510(k) versus PMA. 510(k) applications are cheaper, faster, and less stringent. These factors may contribute to the disproportionate 510(k) approvals and the discrepancy in recall rates. Cardiology, Orthopedics, and Obstetrics and Gynecology have similar trends for devices that go through the 510(k) device approval pathway. Though the rate of 510(k) approvals in Surgery is decreasing, more must be done to ensure that the 510(k) process sufficiently minimizes potential patient risk.

Indexed as

510(k) pathwayFDA device approvalFDA device recallGeneral surgeryPlastic surgeryPremarket approval process

Identifiers

PMID39845291
PMCPMC11749930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.