ArticleDigital health
Evaluation of reporting trends in the MAUDE Database: 1991 to 2022.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perioperative adverse events and device malfunctions associated with ROSA cranial stereotactic robotic surgery a descriptive analysis of FDA MAUDE reports from 2016 to 2026.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- National adverse event reporting for medical devices in Israel, 2013-2024.Israel journal of health policy research · 2026Article
- Nanostructured electrode materials and flexible-substrate engineering for wearable multi-analyte biosensors in diabetes monitoring and personalized care: a comprehensive review.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Review
- Adverse events and device malfunctions in da Vinci robotic surgery: an analysis of MAUDE data from the recent decade.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Challenges and dynamics in reporting medical device incidents: a qualitative study.Frontiers in health services · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adverse event reporting for medical devices is critical for risk mitigation. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database serves as a key tool for post-market surveillance, receiving reports from various sources. Ensuring information integrity, especially across diverse reporting sources, is paramount. Periodic regulatory updates aim to enhance reporting. Objective: Analyze reporting patterns, assess the potential contribution of 2015 and 2018 regulatory updates on reporting rates for varies reporters. Additionally, evaluating reporting schedule compliance by comparing average reporting times to regulatory requirements for these reporters. Methods: Data from 1991-2022 was retrieved from the MAUDE database. Annual report counts were filtered by reporter and event type. Average reporting time was calculated as the difference between received and awareness dates. Results: The 2018 Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) program correlated with an increase in manufacturers' event reporting, peaking at 3,135,501 events in 2022. Distributors' reports surged post-2018, while voluntary reports steadily increased since 1997, spiking notably in 2015 with the Electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR) submission update. Reporting times for deaths averaged 80 days for manufacturers, far exceeding regulatory requirements, compared to 40 days for distributors and 46 days for user facilities. Malfunction events had longer average reporting times for manufacturers (89 days) compared to distributors (44 days). Conclusions: Changes in reporting trends around 2015 and 2018 may be linked to regulatory updates. Tailoring regulatory changes for each reporter type, like user-friendly electronic forms, new reporting programs, and exemptions cancelations, can improve reporting. Balancing the volume of reports among different reporters is crucial for enhancing database integrity, transparency, and overall health outcomes.
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.