ReviewBMJ digital health & AI2026
Analysis of the challenges in ensuring robust and effective clinical evaluation of AI-based digital medical devices.
Review in BMJ digital health & AI, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid evolution of algorithms over time, the validity of the digital criteria used for evaluation and the organisational impact are examples of issues that are both diverse and more specific to digital medical devices (DMDs) than drugs. Furthermore, some DMDs that use artificial intelligence (AI) have the feature of being developed using continuous learning systems, in which the algorithms learn from all the data they use. Despite these unique features, their clinical evaluation often follows existing frameworks designed for drugs. Nevertheless, the specific features of AI-based DMDs call for an adapted clinical evaluation approach and raise new methodological questions. We propose a narrative review of these characteristics and the challenges they could imply for the evaluation of DMDs. Hence, the definition of users and intended use, the choice of datasets for analytical and clinical validation, the specification of outcomes of interest, the use of real-world data studies in addition to randomised clinical trials, and the choice of an appropriate comparator are key elements that can influence the design, analysis and generalisability of the clinical assessment.
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.