SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Evidence integration and bridging methodologies for high-risk and innovative medical devices and
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-risk and innovative medical devices, as well as Objective: To map methodologies for evidence integration and bridging studies in high-risk and innovative medical devices and Methods: A scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance was conducted using peer-reviewed and grey literature published from 2017 onward. Bibliographic databases, industry resources, and preprint platforms were searched. Included records addressed methods for comparing or integrating evidence for medical devices and Results: Nineteen studies were included. Identified methods included Bayesian evidence synthesis, adaptive trial designs, indirect comparisons, propensity score methods, real-world data integration, linked evidence frameworks, in silico approaches, and bridging studies. These methods support evaluation when conventional randomized clinical trials are limited or infeasible. Major challenges included evidence heterogeneity, bias, limited methodological standardization, and variable regulatory acceptance, particularly for Conclusion: Evidence integration methodologies are increasingly important in the evaluation of innovative medical devices and Systematic review registration: The scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF). The Unique Identifier is 10.17605/OSF.IO/XNBSP, and the registration is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XNBSP.
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.