Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42686814›Full record

Articlenpj health systems2026

Sensitivity of 510(k) medical device filings to government shutdowns: a brief communication.

Karl L Schumacher, Sindura Penubarthi, Prashanth Asuri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in npj health systems, 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

3 authors.

Karl L SchumacherDepartment of Bioengineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, USA. kschumacher2@scu.edu.
Sindura PenubarthiRegulatory Affairs Professional, Irvine, CA, USA.
Prashanth AsuriDepartment of Bioengineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Government shutdowns may impose indirect regulatory costs on medical device manufacturers by disrupting FDA review processes. This study examines changes in 510(k) review durations surrounding the 2013 and 2018 U.S. government shutdowns. We identify significant increases in post-shutdown review times and distinct timing-dependent effects across shutdowns, highlighting the sensitivity of regulatory review timelines to operational disruptions and suggest that even partial shutdowns impede medical device review timelines.

Identifiers

PMID42686814
PMCPMC13538595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.