Specific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices
Authors:
- Edmund A. M. NeugebauerENEdmund A. M. Neugebauer
- Ana RathARAna Rath
- Sunya-Lee AntoineSASunya-Lee Antoine
- Michaela EikermannMEMichaela Eikermann
- Doerthe SeidelDSDoerthe Seidel
- Carsten KoenenCKCarsten Koenen
- Esther JacobsEJEsther Jacobs
- Dawid PieperDPDawid Pieper
- Martine LavilleMLMartine Laville
- Séverine PitelSPSéverine Pitel
- Cecilia MartinhoCMCecilia Martinho
- Snezana DjurisicSDSnezana Djurisic
Open Access
- 13 September 2017
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Trials
- Vol. 18 (1) , 427
Abstract
Medical devices play an important role in the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and care of diseases. However, compared to pharmaceuticals, there is no rigorous formal regulation for demonstration of benefits and exclusion of harms to patients. The medical device industry argues that the classical evidence hierarchy cannot be applied for medical devices, as randomised clinical trials are impossible to perform. This article aims to identify the barriers for randomised clinical trials on medical devices. Systematic literature searches without meta-analysis and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications taking place during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project. In addition to the barriers that exist for all trials, we identified three major barriers for randomised clinical trials on medical devices, namely: (1) randomisation, including timing of assessment, acceptability, blinding, choice of the comparator group and considerations on the learning curve; (2) difficulties in determining appropriate outcomes; and (3) the lack of scientific advice, regulations and transparency. The present review offers potential solutions to break down the barriers identified, and argues for applying the randomised clinical trial design when assessing the benefits and harms of medical devices.Keywords
Funding Information
- European Commission (284395)
This publication has 41 references indexed in Scilit:
- Commentary: Europe needs a central, transparent, and evidence based regulation process for devicesBMJ, 2013
- Open, small-incision, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. An overview of Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group reviewsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2010
- Orthopaedic Surgeons Prefer to Participate in Expertise-based Randomized TrialsClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2008
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological studyBMJ, 2008
- Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviewsTrials, 2007
- Cluster Randomized TrialsMedical Care, 2007
- A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensusJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005
- Evaluation of the Learning Curve in Laparoscopic Colorectal SurgeryAnnals of Surgery, 2005
- Conventional Versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trialBritish Journal of Surgery, 1991
- Randomize the First Patient!New England Journal of Medicine, 1977