Séverine Pitel
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Séverine Pitel has a total of 17 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Ana Rath
Inserm, US14-Orphanet, Paris, France
1 shared publication - Carsten Koenen
Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany
1 shared publication - Cecilia Martinho
AIBILI, Azinhaga de Santa Comba-Celas, Coimbra, Portugal
1 shared publication - Christian Gluud
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Department 7812, Copenhagen University Hospital ─ Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
1 shared publication - Christine Kubiak
European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), Paris, France
1 shared publication - Dawid Pieper
Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Rüdersdorf, Germany
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 13 September 2017
- Published by Springer Nature in Trials
- Vol. 18 (1) , 427
Specific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices
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.
- 13 September 2017
- Published by Springer Nature in Trials
- Vol. 18 (1) , 427
Open AccessSpecific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices
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.