ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026
Empowering regulatory science for medical devices in Europe.
Review in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From clinical and ethical perspectives, the need for scientific evidence establishing safety and efficacy of high-risk therapeutic medical devices, and for transparency of that evidence, is similar to new drugs-but requirements for devices and drugs have developed quite differently. The first European system for evaluating new devices applied a framework that had been developed for industrial products. Despite reforms the same flawed structure persists, as a fundamental obstacle to the uniform application of clinical standards, adherence to the principles of open science, and flexibility to respond to innovations. In this Viewpoint, we summarise how the regulatory system evolved and review how it needs to change, for the assessment and approval both of implantable devices and of laboratory diagnostic tests. There are too few clinically-qualified regulators within the EU governing institutions, so substantial investment is needed to boost scientific expertise within a central coordinating unit. Clinicians and scientists must support these changes by developing shared principles with regulators. Some colleagues within each medical speciality should develop expertise in 'regulatory science'.
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.