ReviewIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
A Beginner's Guide to the Annex E Scoring System of ISO 10993-6.
Review in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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
ISO 10993-6 provides the normative framework for assessing local tissue effects after implantation of medical device materials and is widely used in preclinical biological evaluation. Despite its broad application, the standard is frequently misunderstood in both teaching and practice, particularly regarding the logic of its semi-quantitative scoring system. This article aims to clarify the role of ISO 10993-6 within the broader ISO 10993 series, to correct a common misconception about the Annex E calculation, and to distinguish normative requirements from regulatory expectations and laboratory best practice. The Annex E irritation score is based on a weighted comparison of average test and control responses, not on an unweighted sum of raw observations. Inflammatory cell parameters and necrosis carry greater weight than neovascularization, fibrosis and fatty infiltrate. Appropriate control article selection, clinically justified time points and expert pathological interpretation are integral to valid study conduct. The ordinal nature of the scale limits arithmetic precision, and interobserver variability must be addressed through calibration and structured training. Modern implant categories, including degradable materials, porous scaffolds and combination products, may require supplementary methods beyond the standard score sheet. ISO 10993-6 remains a scientifically sound and regulatorily important tool for local biocompatibility assessment when applied with appropriate study design, experienced pathology review and transparent reporting. Training programmes should emphasize the comparative and weighted nature of the scoring system, the boundaries of normative requirements, and the need to integrate Annex E findings within the broader biological evaluation framework.
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.