ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
A Statistical Framework to Detect and Quantify Operator-Learning Curves in Medical Device Safety Evaluation.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methodological considerations for nonconcurrent comparisons of pulsed field ablation catheter platforms.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Safety issues leading to patient harm and significant costs have been identified in several post-market medical devices. Recently, powerful learning effects (LE) have been documented in numerous medical devices. Correctly attributing safety signals to learning or device effects allows for appropriate corrective actions and recommendations to improve patient safety. Objective: To develop and assess the statistical performance of an analytic framework to detect the presence of LE and quantify the learning curve (LC). Design and Setting: We generated synthetic datasets based on observed clinical distributions and complex feature correlations among patients hospitalized at US Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Each dataset represents a hypothetical early experience in the use of high-risk medical devices, with a device of interest and a reference device. The study blinded the analysis team to the data-generation process. Methods: We developed predictive models using generalized additive models and estimated LC parameters using the Levenberg-Marqualdt algorithm. We evaluated the performance using sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR) in detecting the presence of LE and, if present, the goodness-of-fit of the estimated LC based on the root-mean squared error. Results: Among the 2483 simulated datasets, the median (IQR) number of cases was 218,000 (116,000-353,000). LE were detected in 2065 of the 2291 datasets for which learning was specified (sensitivity: 90%; specificity: 88%; LR: 7). We adequately estimated the LC in 1632 (81%) of the 2013 datasets in which LE was detected and estimated LC. Discussion: This study demonstrated the framework to be robust in disentangling LE from device safety signals and in estimating LC. Conclusion: In medical device safety evaluation, the operator-learning effects associated with the safety of medical devices can be effectively modeled and characterized. This study warrants subsequent framework validation by using real-world clinical datasets.
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.