ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
An Ontology for the Adoption of Medical Devices in Health Care Organizations: Design and Development Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The health care industry is witnessing a rapid proliferation of medical devices. Health care organizations need effective tools to identify devices that best align with their needs, and ensure seamless integration into clinical processes. Existing conceptualizations of expert knowledge remain fragmented, and no comprehensive decision support systems exist to assist stakeholders in evaluating and introducing new medical devices. Ontology-based approaches offer a promising avenue to formalize such complex, multidisciplinary knowledge. Objective: This study aims to develop and validate an ontology designed as the backbone of a decision support system to facilitate the informed adoption of medical devices in health care organizations. Methods: The ontology was developed using a 5-phase methodology: (1) Elicitation of knowledge through a systematic literature review, a review of existing conceptualizations, and expert interviews; (2) Conceptualization of a preliminary conceptual map; (3) Co-design of a refined map through focus groups with experts; (4) Development of the ontology using the Protégé ontology editor; and (5) Validation of the ontology through interviews with experts. Forty experts from 13 companies across 3 European countries participated, ensuring multidisciplinary coverage. Results: The resulting ontology provides a modular and comprehensive conceptualization of medical devices that balances granularity, conciseness, and practical relevance. It explicitly models key dimensions required for informed adoption decisions, including medical conditions addressed by the device, health services enabled, roles and activities of health care professionals, manufacturer-related information, medical device applications, and structured evidence derived from Health Technology Assessment reports. The ontology's instantiability and practical applicability were validated by populating it with data from 4 Health Technology Assessment reports and by expert assessment, confirming its ability to address stakeholders' core decision-making needs. Conclusions: This study presents a validated ontology to support the informed adoption of medical devices in health care organizations. It addresses a literature gap by providing a comprehensive, structured conceptualization of medical devices that meets stakeholders' key information needs. By formalizing complex expert knowledge, the ontology lays a foundation for future research and the practical development of decision support systems that enable transparent, effective, and efficient medical device adoption.
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.