Cargando…

Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bernard, Alain, Vaneau, Michel, Fournel, Isabelle, Galmiche, Hubert, Nony, Patrice, Dubernard, Jean Michel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4181748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25285025
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S63869
_version_ 1782337412829020160
author Bernard, Alain
Vaneau, Michel
Fournel, Isabelle
Galmiche, Hubert
Nony, Patrice
Dubernard, Jean Michel
author_facet Bernard, Alain
Vaneau, Michel
Fournel, Isabelle
Galmiche, Hubert
Nony, Patrice
Dubernard, Jean Michel
author_sort Bernard, Alain
collection PubMed
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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4181748
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41817482014-10-03 Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices Bernard, Alain Vaneau, Michel Fournel, Isabelle Galmiche, Hubert Nony, Patrice Dubernard, Jean Michel Med Devices (Auckl) Review 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. Dove Medical Press 2014-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4181748/ /pubmed/25285025 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S63869 Text en © 2014 Bernard et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Bernard, Alain
Vaneau, Michel
Fournel, Isabelle
Galmiche, Hubert
Nony, Patrice
Dubernard, Jean Michel
Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices
title Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices
title_full Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices
title_fullStr Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices
title_full_unstemmed Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices
title_short Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices
title_sort methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4181748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25285025
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S63869
work_keys_str_mv AT bernardalain methodologicalchoicesfortheclinicaldevelopmentofmedicaldevices
AT vaneaumichel methodologicalchoicesfortheclinicaldevelopmentofmedicaldevices
AT fournelisabelle methodologicalchoicesfortheclinicaldevelopmentofmedicaldevices
AT galmichehubert methodologicalchoicesfortheclinicaldevelopmentofmedicaldevices
AT nonypatrice methodologicalchoicesfortheclinicaldevelopmentofmedicaldevices
AT dubernardjeanmichel methodologicalchoicesfortheclinicaldevelopmentofmedicaldevices