ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
Patient Preference Information (PPI) in Medical Device Development: A Cross-Industry Review of Use-Cases.
Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Patient Preference Information (PPI) is increasingly applied across the medical device lifecycle to inform product design, clinical trial planning, regulatory submissions, labeling, and shared decision-making. However, cross-company learnings remain fragmented. This review synthesizes five recent industry case studies illustrating diverse applications of PPI: Edwards Lifesciences (transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement), CVRx (Barostim neuromodulation therapy for heart failure), Medtronic (renal denervation for hypertension), Johnson and Johnson (lung cancer interception therapy), and Abbott (leadless pacemaker feature optimization). Across cases, quantitative stated-preference methods, particularly discrete-choice experiments, predominated. Evidence informed pivotal trial design and regulatory submissions (Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic), FDA-approved labeling (CVRx), preventive therapy development (Johnson and Johnson), and device feature prioritization post-approval (Abbott). Common enablers included early engagement with regulators, rigorous instrument development with qualitative pretesting, and proactive dissemination. Recurring challenges involved recruiting representative samples, addressing preference heterogeneity, and demonstrating return on investment. These findings underscore the feasibility and value of PPI in advancing patient-centered innovation and regulatory decision-making across the medical device lifecycle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42323480What 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.