Dataset Information

What type of clinical evidence is needed to assess medical devices?

ABSTRACT: The objective of this mini-review is to discuss the role of real-world studies as a source of clinical evidence when experimental studies, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), are not available. Waiting for RCT evidence when the technology is diffusing could be anti-economical, inefficient from the policy perspective and methodologically questionable.We explain how real-world studies could provide relevant evidence to decision makers. Matching techniques are discussed as a viable solution for bias reduction.We describe a case study concerning a cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data of a technology already in use: Mitraclip combined with medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in patients with moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation. The CEA has encountered the scepticism of most reviewers, due not to the statistical methodology but to the fact that the study was observational and not experimental. Editors and reviewers converged in considering real-world economic evaluations premature in the absence of a RCT, even if in the meantime the technology had been implanted >30 000 times. We believe there is a need to acknowledge the importance of real-world studies, and engage the scientific community in the promotion and use of clinical evidence produced through observational studies.

SUBMITTER: Tarricone R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9487219 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What type of clinical evidence is needed to assess medical devices?

Tarricone Rosanna R Boscolo Paola Roberta PR Armeni Patrizio P

European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society 20160901 141

The objective of this mini-review is to discuss the role of real-world studies as a source of clinical evidence when experimental studies, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), are not available. Waiting for RCT evidence when the technology is diffusing could be anti-economical, inefficient from the policy perspective and methodologically questionable.We explain how real-world studies could provide relevant evidence to decision makers. Matching techniques are discussed as a viable solutio ...[more]

PMID: 27581825

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMeeting increased regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices marketed in Europe in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (EU 2017/745) is challenging, particularly for high-risk devices used in children.MethodsWithin the CORE-MD project, we performed a scoping review on evidence from clinical trials investigating high-risk paediatric medical devices used in paediatric cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery, in patients aged 0-21 years. We searched Medline and Embase from 1st January 2017 to 9th November 2022.ResultsFrom 1692 records screened, 99 trials were included. Most were multicentre studies performed in North America and Europe that mainly had evaluated medical devices from the specialty of diabetology. Most had enrolled adolescents and 39% of trials included both children and adults. Randomized controlled trials accounted for 38% of the sample. Other frequently used designs were before-after studies (21%) and crossover trials (20%). Included trials were mainly small, with a sample size <100 participants in 64% of the studies. Most frequently assessed outcomes were efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety.ConclusionWithin the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were of various designs, often lacked a concurrent control group, and recruited few infants and young children.ImpactIn the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were mainly small, with variable study designs (often without concurrent control), and they mostly enrolled adolescents. We provide a systematic summary of methodologies applied in clinical trials of medical devices in the paediatric population, reflecting obstacles in this research area that make it challenging to conduct adequately powered randomized controlled trials. In view of changing European regulations and related concerns about shortages of high-risk medical devices for children, our findings may assist competent authorities in setting realistic requirements for the evidence level to support device conformity certification.

Project description:Clinical evidence available for the assessment of medical devices (MDs) is frequently insufficient. New MDs should be subjected to high quality clinical studies to demonstrate their benefit to patients. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the study design reaching the highest level of evidence in order to demonstrate the efficacy of a new MD. However, the clinical context of some MDs makes it difficult to carry out a conventional RCT. The objectives of this review are to present problems related to conducting conventional RCTs and to identify other experimental designs, their limitations, and their applications. A systematic literature search was conducted for the period January 2000 to July 2012 by searching medical bibliographic databases. Problems related to conducting conventional RCTs of MDs were identified: timing the assessment, eligible population and recruitment, acceptability, blinding, choice of comparator group, and learning curve. Other types of experimental designs have been described. Zelen's design trials and randomized consent design trials facilitate the recruitment of patients, but can cause ethical problems to arise. Expertise-based RCTs involve randomization to a team that specializes in a given intervention. Sometimes, the feasibility of an expertise-based randomized trial may be greater than that of a conventional trial. Cross-over trials reduce the number of patients, but are not applicable when a learning curve is required. Sequential trials have the advantage of allowing a trial to be stopped early depending on the results of first inclusions, but they require an independent committee. Bayesian methods combine existing information with information from the ongoing trial. These methods are particularly useful in situations where the number of subjects is small. The disadvantage is the risk of including erroneous prior information. Other types of experimental designs exist when conventional trials cannot always be applied to the clinical development of MDs.

Project description:IntroductionMedical devices, including high-risk medical devices, have greatly contributed to recent improvements in the management of diabetes. However, the clinical evidence that is submitted for regulatory approval is not transparent, and thus a comprehensive summary of the evidence for high-risk devices approved for managing diabetes in Europe is lacking. In the framework of the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices group, we will, therefore, perform a systematic review and meta-analysis, which will evaluate the efficacy, safety and usability of high-risk medical devices for the management of diabetes.Method and analysisThis study has been reported according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will search Embase (Elsevier), Medline All (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) to identify interventional and observational studies that evaluate the efficacy and/or safety and/or usability of high-risk medical devices for the management of diabetes. No language or publication dates' limits will be applied. Animal studies will be excluded. In accordance with the Medical Device Regulation in European Union, high-risk medical devices are those in classes IIb and III. The following medical devices for diabetes management are considered as having a high risk: implantable continuous glucose monitoring systems, implantable pumps and automated insulin delivery devices. Selection of studies, data extraction and quality of evidence assessment will be performed independently by two researchers. Sensitivity analysis will be performed to identify and explain potential heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is needed for this systematic review, as it is based in already published data. Our findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42022366871.

Project description:ObjectiveTo conduct an overview of meta-analyses of radiomics studies assessing their study quality and evidence level.MethodsA systematical search was updated via peer-reviewed electronic databases, preprint servers, and systematic review protocol registers until 15 November 2022. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of primary radiomics studies were included. Their reporting transparency, methodological quality, and risk of bias were assessed by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist, AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2) tool, and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool, respectively. The evidence level supporting the radiomics for clinical use was rated.ResultsWe identified 44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses on radiomics research. The mean ± standard deviation of PRISMA adherence rate was 65 ± 9%. The AMSTAR-2 tool rated 5 and 39 systematic reviews as low and critically low confidence, respectively. The ROBIS assessment resulted low, unclear and high risk in 5, 11, and 28 systematic reviews, respectively. We reperformed 53 meta-analyses in 38 included systematic reviews. There were 3, 7, and 43 meta-analyses rated as convincing, highly suggestive, and weak levels of evidence, respectively. The convincing level of evidence was rated in (1) T2-FLAIR radiomics for IDH-mutant vs IDH-wide type differentiation in low-grade glioma, (2) CT radiomics for COVID-19 vs other viral pneumonia differentiation, and (3) MRI radiomics for high-grade glioma vs brain metastasis differentiation.ConclusionsThe systematic reviews on radiomics were with suboptimal quality. A limited number of radiomics approaches were supported by convincing level of evidence.Clinical relevance statementThe evidence supporting the clinical application of radiomics are insufficient, calling for researches translating radiomics from an academic tool to a practicable adjunct towards clinical deployment.

Dataset Information

What type of clinical evidence is needed to assess medical devices?

Publications

What type of clinical evidence is needed to assess medical devices?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets