Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40261654›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Nonconcurrent Control Use in FDA Approval of High-Risk Medical Devices.

Maryam Mooghali, Sanket S Dhruva, Hollin R L Hakimian, Vinay K Rathi, Kushal T Kadakia, Joseph S Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

6 authors.

Maryam MooghaliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Sanket S DhruvaSection of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.
Hollin R L HakimianCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Health System, New Haven, Connecticut.
Vinay K RathiDepartment of Otolaryngology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Kushal T KadakiaHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Joseph S RossDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may consider historical controls, objective performance criteria, or performance goals as alternatives to concurrent control groups in clinical studies evaluating safety and/or effectiveness of high-risk medical devices. However, nonconcurrent control use has limitations. Objective: To examine frequency, justification, and clinically relevant details for use of nonconcurrent controls in pivotal studies supporting FDA approval of high-risk medical devices. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study from 2019 through 2023 of original high-risk therapeutic medical device approvals in the US. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequency, justification, and clinically relevant details for use of historical controls, objective performance criteria, and performance goals and whether they had been established by the FDA. Results: From 2019 to 2023, the FDA approved 101 original high-risk therapeutic medical devices, of which 13 (12.9%) were not approved on the basis of any pivotal study. Among the remaining 88 approvals, 33 (37.5%) were based on pivotal studies that used concurrent controls for all analyses, 3 (3.4%) on single-group studies without the use of nonconcurrent controls, and 52 (59.1%) were based on at least 1 analysis using historical controls, objective performance criteria, or performance goals for primary safety and/or effectiveness end points. These 52 premarket approvals included 79 primary safety or effectiveness analyses using nonconcurrent controls: 9 historical controls (11.4%), 7 objective performance criteria (8.9%), and 63 performance goals (79.7%). Overall, 3 analyses (3.8%) provided justification for use of nonconcurrent controls. Clinically relevant details were provided for 19 analyses (24.1%) with respect to historical data publication dates and for 10 (12.7%) with respect to comparison of patient characteristics between pivotal studies and nonconcurrent controls. Four of 7 objective performance criteria (57.1%) and 0 of 63 performance goals had been established by the FDA. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of high-risk therapeutic medical device approvals by the FDA over the past 5 years found that most approvals were based on analyses using nonconcurrent controls with limited justification and clinically relevant details, potentially creating uncertainty for patients, clinicians, and payers regarding the evidence establishing device safety and effectiveness.

Indexed as

Device ApprovalEquipment and SuppliesEquipment SafetyUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40261654
PMCPMC12015671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.