Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42512695›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Beyond CE Marking: The Need for Life-Cycle Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices for Patient Safety and Health-System Value.

Christos Ntais, Michael A Talias

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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

2 authors.

Christos NtaisHealthcare Management Program, School of Economics & Management, Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia 2220, Cyprus.ORCID 0000-0002-2749-101X
Michael A TaliasHealthcare Management Program, School of Economics & Management, Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia 2220, Cyprus.ORCID 0000-0002-1802-5586

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesMedical devices are essential to modern healthcare, but their adoption is often driven by regulatory conformity, clinical enthusiasm, procurement pressures and vendor-led innovation rather than systematic evaluation of comparative value. CE marking and related regulatory mechanisms are necessary for market access; however, they do not determine whether a device improves patient-related outcomes compared with existing alternatives, whether its benefits justify its total costs, or whether it can be implemented safely in routine care. This narrative review examines why medical devices require a dedicated life-cycle health technology assessment (HTA) approach and proposes an operational framework linking assessment to adoption, evidence generation, reassessment and disinvestment.

methodsA structured targeted search covered peer-reviewed literature and policy or institutional documents addressing HTA, medical devices, regulation, economic evaluation, real-world evidence, hospital-based HTA, procurement digital and AI-enabled devices, patient involvement and post-market reassessment.

resultsMedical devices differ from pharmaceuticals through user dependence, learning curves, procedure dependence, short product life cycles, incremental modification, heterogeneous comparators, limited randomized evidence and hidden life-cycle costs. These features create clinical, economic, organizational and implementation uncertainty after market entry. The proposed model specifies six linked phases: horizon scanning and early dialogue, pre-adoption appraisal, an explicit adoption decision, controlled implementation, real-world monitoring and scheduled or trigger-based reassessment leading to continuation, scale-up, restriction, or disinvestment. Practical constraints include fragmented data infrastructure, the cost of maintaining registries and residual confounding in real-world evidence.

conclusionsMedical device HTA should move beyond one-time pre-adoption assessment toward a decision-linked life-cycle model that integrates comparative value, patient and public involvement, procurement, implementation governance, real-world evidence, version monitoring, reassessment and disinvestment. This approach can support responsible innovation, patient safety, transparent procurement and sustainable health-system value.

Indexed as

CE markingcost-effectivenesshealth technology assessmenthospital-based HTAlife-cycle HTAmedical devicespatient safetypost-market surveillanceprocurementreal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID42512695
PMCPMC13409966

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.