Dataset Information

Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the methodological quality of pre-market clinical studies performed on medical devices (MDs), including in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) MDs, in Europe.

Design

Observational cross-sectional study.

Setting

A large German ethics committee.

Materials

From the consecutive sample of study applications between March 2010 and December 2013, we selected MD study applications requiring approval by an ethics committee and the competent federal authority. These included pre-market studies on devices that had not yet received a CE (Conformité Européenne) mark or had previously been CE marked for a different indication. Also included were post-CE studies requiring federal authority approval because the study entailed additional invasive or otherwise burdensome components.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Besides the design of the studies, we assessed the planned sample size, study duration and other aspects.

Results

122 study applications were analysed: 98 (80%) concerned therapeutic rather than diagnostic devices and 84 (69%) were pre-market studies. The proportion of studies on class I, IIa, IIb and III devices was 10%, 15%, 28% and 39%, respectively. 10 studies (8%) investigated IVD MDs. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) was planned in 70 (57%) of the 122 applications; studies with non-randomised control groups (n=23; 19%) or without controls (n=29; 24%) were less common. In the sub-group of pre-market studies on therapeutic devices, the proportion of RCTs was 66% (43/65). The median sample size was 120 participants or samples (IQR 53-229). The median study duration was 24 (14-38) months. 87 studies (71%) considered at least one patient-relevant outcome. 12 (17%) and 37 (53%) of the 70 RCTs applied a fully or partially blinded design, respectively.

Conclusion

A large proportion of MD studies in Germany apply a randomised controlled design, thus contradicting the industry argument that RCTs on MDs are commonly infeasible.

SUBMITTER: Sauerland S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6398724 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee.

Sauerland Stefan S Fujita-Rohwerder Naomi N Zens Yvonne Y Molnar Sandra S

BMJ open 20190222 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the methodological quality of pre-market clinical studies performed on medical devices (MDs), including in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) MDs, in Europe.<h4>Design</h4>Observational cross-sectional study.<h4>Setting</h4>A large German ethics committee.<h4>Materials</h4>From the consecutive sample of study applications between March 2010 and December 2013, we selected MD study applications requiring approval by an ethics committee and the competent federal authority. These inc ...[more]

PMID: 30798319

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as two threats to the validity of systematic reviews. The purpose of this research was to estimate the proportion of missing participant outcome data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) due to lack of publication of whole studies and due to outcome data missing within study publications.Data were extracted from protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) between 2000 and 2002 and associated fully published articles. The total amount of published and unpublished outcome data from all trial participants was calculated for each trial and the overall proportion of missing data from both unpublished and published trials computed. Full and partially reported outcome data was also taken into consideration. The impact of funding source on missingness was also considered at the trial level. From 308 parallel group trials in the study cohort, 167 were published and 141 were unpublished. Overall, 260,563 participants contributed to a total of 2,618,116 participant outcome data across all trials. About half (47%) of the participant outcome data from the 308 trials was reported in full but at least 81% were partially reported. Of the 19% of participant data that were missing, 4% was attributable to missing data from published trials and 15% from unpublished trials. Commercially funded trials had a higher probability of publication (relative risk 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.86, 1.67; p = 0.27) but were less likely to fully report all outcomes than non-commercially funded trials (relative risk 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.30, 1.38; p = 0.26).Missing participant outcome data from both published and unpublished trials is frequent. Clinical trial registration including outcome information not only identifies that clinical trials exist but the systematic examination and monitoring of trial information within a registry can help detect selective reporting of entire studies and of outcome data within studies and possibly prevent it.

Project description:BackgroundWhen reviewing a protocol, research ethics committees (RECs, equivalent to institutional review boards - IRBs) have the responsibility to consider whether the proposed research is justified. If research is not justified, it can waste participants' time, researchers' time and resources. As RECs are not constituted to cover all areas of scientific or academic expertise, it can be difficult for RECs to decide whether research is scientifically or methodologically justified especially in the absence of authoritative (often in the form of systematic) reviews. Where such reviews are absent, some have argued that RECs should insist on a new review of existing evidence as a condition of the REC favourable opinion. However, as RECs review a wide range of research, such requests must be proportionate to the type, and extent, of proposed projects. Risk is one factor that may influence the extent of evidence need for a REC to determine that the new project is justified, but not the only factor. The aim of the work described here was to determine whether REC members and researchers specifically link risk to the type of research methodology, and if so, whether this link could be used to help guide the need for systematic, or other, types of reviews.MethodWe conducted a cross-sectional study, gathering data between November 2020 and January 2021, to examine whether proposed research methodologies impact how RECs perceive risk to participants. We presented 31 research methodologies to REC members and researchers in the form of an international survey.ResultsWe collected 283 responses that included both qualitative and quantitative data as to how research methodology impacts perceptions of risk to participants. We used the data to conclude that RECs did see a link between risk and type of research. We therefore constructed a hierarchy of risk with Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, and clinical psychology/psychiatry intervention studies, at the top (i.e. viewed as most risky).ConclusionsWe discuss whether this hierarchy is useful for guiding RECs as to the level of scientific justification that they should seek when reviewing proposed research protocols, and present a one-page guidance sheet to help RECs during their reviews.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The general purpose for ethics consultations is to deliberate on issues on medical and scientific research and act towards the safeguard of the patient's rights and dignity. With the implementation of European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials and cost and time-optimization, the nature of consultations and the bodies they are carried out might be to some extent affected. Accordingly, we sought to gain an updated perspective on the current role and current practices of ethics consultations nationwide in both clinical and research settings. METHODS:The study was carried forth by a three-step mixed-method approach: i) review of policies/regulations for ethics committee (EC) nationwide; ii) a structured survey on ethics consultation activity completed by each EC during 2016; iii) incorporated into the third part, a qualitative assessment with a selected sample of 8 key-informants for a semi-structured interview, discussing EC history, the ethics consultation function, and the professional experience of consultants. RESULTS:Review of the policies/regulations promoted by ECs showed that 72,6% (n = 69) of all the ECs (N = 95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy. 71 ECs (74.7%) responded to the survey on ethics consultation requests; among them, 48 (67.6%) provided ethics consultations of which 23 (23/48) actually received requests for this service in the year 2016. Many ECs did not have a structured database in place to provide precise figures of requests received in the last year nor of their contents. CONCLUSION:To date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and not well understood by users. The consultants themselves lack a comprehensive vision of work carried out in their field, and bioethics training programs to keep them updated. Despite clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated.

Dataset Information

Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee.

Objective

Design

Setting

Materials

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets