ArticleTrials2025
Worldwide trends in the quality and breadth of clinical investigations of medical devices over the past decade: a scoping review and evidence map.
Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- EU's fragmented early-stage medical device study requirements need reform.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Horizon Scanning for Medical Technologies: Methodological Framework Development Study of the Medical Innovation Scanning Techniques (MIST) Framework.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- NICE's early value assessment: an external assessment group's commentary on the challenges and opportunities of NICE's new life cycle approach to HealthTech.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent regulatory developments in Europe have enhanced the requirements for clinical investigations of medical devices, partly in response to a perceived need for a higher level of evidence that is publicly available. This scoping review aims to map published clinical investigations of medical devices by device type and clinical specialty and summarise key trial design aspects.
methodsWe developed a search for EMBASE that identified clinical investigations of medical devices during two discrete 3-month periods at the end of 2012 and of 2022. Core information from observational studies was extracted along with details on study design in interventional studies. We developed an evidence map of published studies across device type and clinical specialty and summarised study design aspects.
resultsWe included 682 studies from 2012 and 1682 studies from 2022. Around a quarter of studies were interventional and the remainder being observational and primary outcomes of effectiveness were more common than efficacy. Key study design aspects were frequently unreported, including sample size justification, registration, randomisation technique and funders. Our evidence map demonstrated that predominantly, investigations were of implants and were in a cardiovascular setting. Clinical investigations were broadly similar between 2012 and 2022, though there was a reduction in the proportion of cardiovascular studies, a move in the share of studies coming out of Europe and North America towards Asia and a general improvement in the quality of study design reported.
conclusionsImplanted devices in cardiovascular disease and orthopaedics are the focus of a large proportion of published clinical investigations of medical devices. Reporting of key study design aspects of clinical investigations of medical devices are improving but are still below expected requirements. REGISTRATION: A pre-specified and published protocol was registered on figshare: doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22276945.v1 on 15/03/2023.
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.