Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41929241›Full record

ReviewMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2026

A Multidimensional Index Framework for Evaluating the Regulatory Applicability of ISO 10328 Using a Prosthetic Knee Case Study.

Jia Li

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Jia LiThe Institute of Theory and Strategy of Standardization, China National Institute of Standardization (CNIS), Beijing, 100191, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International biomechanical standards, such as ISO 10328 for lower-limb prosthetic testing, are widely used to guide device evaluation, yet their direct adoption into national regulatory systems often results in mismatches in safety expectations, documentation formats, and contextual use conditions. Despite extensive reliance on ISO standards, there is no structured method to assess whether these standards are appropriately aligned with regulatory requirements across different jurisdictions. This narrative review, combined with a conceptual framework and an illustrative cross-jurisdictional case study, proposes a multi-dimensional applicability index designed to evaluate the regulatory fit of international biomechanical standards before national adoption. The index comprises five dimensions clinical safety alignment, technical fit, contextual usability, documentation conformance, and regulatory interoperability, each providing a structured lens for assessing standard suitability. Using ISO 10328 and a representative prosthetic knee device as an example, the study demonstrates how the index highlights areas of strong technical alignment but also reveals gaps related to usability, documentation, and post-market expectations across the U.S. FDA, EU MDR, and China's GB/NMPA systems. The findings underscore the need for context-aware evaluation tools to complement global standards, reducing approval delays and improving device performance in real-world environments. This work provides a foundational methodology for regulators, manufacturers, and standards bodies seeking to harmonize global testing norms while ensuring national regulatory relevance and patient safety.

Indexed as

biomechanicsinternational standardsmedical device regulationprosthetic knee jointsregulatory frameworks

Identifiers

PMID41929241
PMCPMC13038417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.