Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42859472›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026

Empowering regulatory science for medical devices in Europe.

Alan G Fraser, Robert A Byrne, Elisabeth M C Dequeker, Per Kjærsgaard-Andersen, Sanja Kolaček, Tom Melvin, Rob G H H Nelissen, Piotr Szymański, Elizabeth Macintyre

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

9 authors.

Alan G FraserUniversity Hospital of Wales, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XW, UK.
Robert A ByrneCardiovascular Research Institute (CVRI) Dublin, and Department of Cardiology, Mater Private Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Elisabeth M C DequekerBiomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Per Kjærsgaard-AndersenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vejle Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, 5000, Odense, Denmark.
Sanja KolačekZagreb University Medical School, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Tom MelvinInstitute for Clinical Trials, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway, Ireland.
Rob G H H NelissenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Piotr SzymańskiClinical Cardiology Center, National Institute of Medicine MSWiA, Warsaw, Poland.
Elizabeth MacintyreUniversity Paris Cité and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP Centre, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

European unionExpert panelsMedical device regulationsRegulatory science

Identifiers

PMID42859472
PMCPMC13652854

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.