Regulatory approval of new medical devices: Cross sectional study

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 353, Issue , 2016, Pages

  Marcus, Hani J ^a,b   Payne, Christopher J ^a   Hughes Hallett, Archie ^a   Marcus, Adam P ^a   Yang, Guang Zhong ^a   Darzi, Ara ^a   Nandi, Dipankar ^b  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA BASE; DEVICE APPROVAL; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL DEVICE; MEDLINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; CLINICAL STUDY; DEVICES; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; ORGANIZATION; PROSTHESES AND ORTHOSES; STANDARDS;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; CLINICAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DEVICE APPROVAL; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; HEALTH CARE SECTOR; HUMANS; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS;

EID: 84969849830     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i2587     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Steiner CA, Bass EB, Talamini MA, Pitt HA, Steinberg EP. Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland. N Engl J Med 1994;330:403-8. doi:10.1056/NEJM199402103300607.
2. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, et al. Balliol Collaboration. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009;374:1089-96. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61083-7.
3. Drolet BC, Lorenzi NM. Translational research: understanding the continuum from bench to bedside. Transl Res 2011;157:1-5. doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2010.10.002.
4. Thompson M, Heneghan C, Billingsley M, Cohen D. Medical device recalls and transparency in the UK. BMJ 2011;342:d2973. doi:10.1136/bmj.d2973.
5. Zuckerman D, Brown P, Das A. Lack of publicly available scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of implanted medical devices. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:1781-7. doi:10.1001/ jamainternmed.2014.4193.
6. Zuckerman DM, Brown P, Nissen SE. Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1006-11. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.30.
7. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Alexiou GA, Gouvias TC, Ioannidis JP. Medicine. Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science 2008;321:1298-9. doi:10.1126/ science.1160622.
8. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ntzani E, Ioannidis JP. Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. Am J Med 2003;114:477-84. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00013-5.
9. Marcus HJ, Payne CJ, Hughes-Hallett A, et al. Making the leap: The translation of innovative surgical devices from the laboratory to the operating room. Ann Surg 2015. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001532.
10. Paul S, McCulloch P, Sedrakyan A. Robotic surgery: revisiting no innovation without evaluation. BMJ 2013;346:f1573.
11. Wilmshurst P. The regulation of medical devices. BMJ 2011;342:d2822. doi:10.1136/bmj.d2822.
12. Nieuwenhuijse MJ, Nelissen RG, Schoones JW, Sedrakyan A. Appraisal of evidence base for introduction of new implants in hip and knee replacement: a systematic review of five widely used device technologies. BMJ 2014;349:g5133. doi:10.1136/bmj.g5133.
13. Kesselheim AS, Rajan PV. Regulating incremental innovation in medical devices. BMJ 2014;349:g5303. doi:10.1136/bmj.g5303.
14. Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, et al. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ 2013;346:f2820
15. Ergina PL, Barkun JS, McCulloch P, et al. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ 2013:346:f3011.
16. McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG, et al. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ 2013:346:f3012.
17. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. Balliol Collaboration. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009;374:1105-12. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8.
18. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, et al. Balliol Collaboration. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009;374:1097-104. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61086-2.
19. Normand SLT, Hatfield L, Drozda J, et al. In: Res C, ed. Postmarket surveillance for medical devices: America's new strategy. BMJ 2012:345.
20. McMurry-Heath M, Hamburg MA. Creating a space for innovative device development. Sci Transl Med 2012;4:163fs43. doi:10.1126/ scitranslmed.3005269.
21. Chang L, Dhruva SS, Chu J, Bero LA, Redberg RF. Selective reporting in trials of high risk cardiovascular devices: cross sectional comparison between premarket approval summaries and published reports. BMJ 2015;350:h2613. doi:10.1136/bmj.h2613.
22. Rathi VK, Krumholz HM, Masoudi FA, Ross JS. Characteristics of clinical studies conducted over the total product life cycle of high-risk therapeutic medical devices receiving FDA premarket approval in 2010 and 2011. JAMA 2015;314:604-12. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.8761.