ReviewJournal of orthopaedic translation2025
Importance to understand medical device regulations for accelerating clinical translation.
Review in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biodegradable Zn-Based Implants: Progress, Challenges, and Pathways toward Clinical Translation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Application of ultrasound and ultrasound-responsive materials in wounds: A systematic review.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026Review
- Commercial Translation of Electrochemical Biosensors: Supply Chain Strategy, Scale-Up Manufacturing, and Regulatory-Quality Considerations.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Tackling musculoskeletal disorders in an aging world: Advances in orthopaedic translational research.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical translation of medical devices is determined by many factors and is challenging for certain countries or regions as no regulatory body is available to approve related applications. They must rely on application for regulatory bodies of other countries or regions who have independent medical device regulatory systems, while the major markets regulatory process is different. For example, considering the market size and policy orientation, mainland China may be a good option for Hong Kong research organizations. Typically, China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has positioned innovation as a key growth engine and implemented various mechanisms to expedite the registration, including Marketing Authorization Holder policy (MAH), as well as the setting up of the NMPA's Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) Branch Office, type test reform and application for securing innovation channel application. However, there are still many challenges in the transitional process for Hong Kong universities or research institutions, to set up a company in mainland and then prepare many documental files from very beginning. In the future, taking advantage of NMPA reform and seeking cooperation with the NMPA to establish an independent regulatory body in Hong Kong to be recognized by NMPA is recommended as this alone will boost innovation in life sciences and boost in Hong Kong, and have a positive impact on the commercialization of medical devices in mainland China. Such example may also be relevant for many countries or regions who are seeking medical device approval in the designated regulatory systems.
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.