Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42566203›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2026

Premarket Clinical Evidence Strength and Recalls of High-Risk Therapeutic Medical Devices.

Maryam Mooghali, Faaizah Arshad, Vinay K Rathi, Kushal T Kadakia, Alexander O Everhart, Joseph S Ross, Sanket S Dhruva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 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

7 authors.

Maryam MooghaliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Faaizah ArshadUniversity of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco.
Vinay K RathiDepartment of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.
Kushal T KadakiaDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Alexander O EverhartDivision of General Medicine and Geriatrics, John T. Milliken Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Joseph S RossDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Sanket S DhruvaSection of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: High-risk medical devices approved through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket approval (PMA) pathway may be supported by limited premarket clinical evidence, leaving uncertainties about safety. Whether device, premarket clinical evidence, or regulatory characteristics are associated with subsequent device recalls is unknown. Objective: To examine the association between device, premarket clinical evidence, and regulatory characteristics and serious recalls among high-risk therapeutic devices. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study reviewed 193 high-risk therapeutic medical devices approved through the FDA's PMA pathway between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2023. Data were analyzed between August 2025 and December 2025. Exposures: Device characteristics, premarket pivotal clinical study characteristics, and regulatory characteristics. Main Outcome and Measure: The main outcome was occurrence of serious recall (Class I or II) and Class I (highest severity) recall. Results: From 2014 to 2023, the FDA approved 193 original high-risk therapeutic medical devices through the PMA pathway. As of July 31, 2025, a total of 68 (35.2%) were subject to at least 1 serious recall, with a median (IQR) of 2.6 (1.5-4.6) years from approval to first recall; 20 (10.4%) devices were subject to at least 1 Class I recall. Life-supporting or life-sustaining devices more often had serious recalls (28 of 60 [46.7%] vs 40 of 133 [30.1%]; P = .02) and Class I recalls (14 of 60 [23.3%] vs 6 of 133 [4.5%]; P < .001) than non-life-supporting and life-sustaining devices. Cardiovascular devices more often had Class I recalls than noncardiovascular devices (16 of 99 [16.2%] vs 4 of 94 [4.3%]; P = .004). Class I recalls differed by pivotal study design: single-arm with no controls, 3 of 9 (33.3%); single-arm with nonconcurrent controls, 11 of 89 (12.4%); and multiple-arm with concurrent controls, 6 of 95 (6.3%) (P = .03). Devices with required postapproval studies had more serious recalls (56 of 140 [40.0%] vs 12 of 53 [22.6%]; P = .04) than those without. Other characteristics were not associated with recall likelihood. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, more than one-third of high-risk therapeutic medical devices were subject to serious recalls. Because device, premarket clinical evidence, and regulatory characteristics were not consistently associated with serious recalls, robust postmarket surveillance is needed to ensure patient safety.

Indexed as

Device ApprovalEquipment and SuppliesMedical Device RecallsCross-Sectional StudiesEquipment SafetyHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID42566203
PMCPMC13451980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.