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.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.