2012
DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2012.12k030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rethinking medical device regulation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, debates were recently stimulated by the failure of EU regulation for metal-on-metal hip prostheses [30][31][32] and the case of implantable devices (e.g., cardioverterdefibrillator and breast implant), suggesting post-market surveillance failure due to poor reporting and analysis of adverse events [33][34][35]. The recent debates culminated with the scandal on breast implants marketed by the French company Poly Implant Prothèse [36].…”
Section: General Findings From the Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, debates were recently stimulated by the failure of EU regulation for metal-on-metal hip prostheses [30][31][32] and the case of implantable devices (e.g., cardioverterdefibrillator and breast implant), suggesting post-market surveillance failure due to poor reporting and analysis of adverse events [33][34][35]. The recent debates culminated with the scandal on breast implants marketed by the French company Poly Implant Prothèse [36].…”
Section: General Findings From the Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Class I Medical Device without a measuring function and supplied in non-sterile condition does not require the involvement of a Notified Body. In accordance with the ‘Regulation of medical devices outside the European Union’, low-risk products may only require a supplier’s declaration of conformity (SDOC), where the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that the product complies with the relevant requirement and then produces a written self-declaration statement [ 17 ].…”
Section: Methods and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The system of approval based on substantial equivalence (e.g. the US 510(k) approval process) has already been recommended to be replaced with an integrated pre‐market and post‐market regulatory framework that effectively provides a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness throughout the device life cycle (Heneghan and Thompson, ; Sorenson and Drummond, ). A potential collaborative model of future device regulation is the MaRS Excellence in Clinical Technology Evaluation (EXCITE) programme currently operating in Ontario (MaRS, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%