Cargando…

Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants

PURPOSE: Recent safety issues involving medical devices have highlighted the need for better postmarket surveillance (PMS) evaluation. This article aims to describe and to assess the quality of the PMS data for a medical device and, finally, to provide recommendations to improve the data gathering p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pane, Josep, Verhamme, Katia M. C., Rebollo, Irene, Sturkenboom, Miriam C. J. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7216945/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32128913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pds.4971
_version_ 1783532515267444736
author Pane, Josep
Verhamme, Katia M. C.
Rebollo, Irene
Sturkenboom, Miriam C. J. M.
author_facet Pane, Josep
Verhamme, Katia M. C.
Rebollo, Irene
Sturkenboom, Miriam C. J. M.
author_sort Pane, Josep
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Recent safety issues involving medical devices have highlighted the need for better postmarket surveillance (PMS) evaluation. This article aims to describe and to assess the quality of the PMS data for a medical device and, finally, to provide recommendations to improve the data gathering process. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) on the use of MRA, a specific type of hip implant replacement submitted to the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017. The number of reports was described as the number of MDRs per unique MDR number and stratified by different variables. The quality was assessed by the level of completeness of the collected PMS data. RESULTS: The total number of reports related to MRA was 2377, and the number of MDRs per year ranged between 84 in 2009 and 452 in 2017. Most of the reports were reported by manufacturer Depuy Johnson & Johnson and were reported by a physician. In 44.9% of the reports, the device problem was reported as “Unknown.” When the device problem was known, in the majority of cases, it was related to an implant fracture. The quality of the collected data was assessed as low due to missing information. CONCLUSION: The underlying data should meet high quality standards to generate more evidence and to ensure a timely signal generation. This case study shows that the completeness and quality of the MDRs can be improved. The authors propose the development of tools to ensure a more dynamic complaint data collection to contribute to this enhancement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7216945
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72169452020-05-13 Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants Pane, Josep Verhamme, Katia M. C. Rebollo, Irene Sturkenboom, Miriam C. J. M. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Original Reports PURPOSE: Recent safety issues involving medical devices have highlighted the need for better postmarket surveillance (PMS) evaluation. This article aims to describe and to assess the quality of the PMS data for a medical device and, finally, to provide recommendations to improve the data gathering process. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) on the use of MRA, a specific type of hip implant replacement submitted to the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017. The number of reports was described as the number of MDRs per unique MDR number and stratified by different variables. The quality was assessed by the level of completeness of the collected PMS data. RESULTS: The total number of reports related to MRA was 2377, and the number of MDRs per year ranged between 84 in 2009 and 452 in 2017. Most of the reports were reported by manufacturer Depuy Johnson & Johnson and were reported by a physician. In 44.9% of the reports, the device problem was reported as “Unknown.” When the device problem was known, in the majority of cases, it was related to an implant fracture. The quality of the collected data was assessed as low due to missing information. CONCLUSION: The underlying data should meet high quality standards to generate more evidence and to ensure a timely signal generation. This case study shows that the completeness and quality of the MDRs can be improved. The authors propose the development of tools to ensure a more dynamic complaint data collection to contribute to this enhancement. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020-03-03 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7216945/ /pubmed/32128913 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pds.4971 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Reports
Pane, Josep
Verhamme, Katia M. C.
Rebollo, Irene
Sturkenboom, Miriam C. J. M.
Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants
title Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants
title_full Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants
title_fullStr Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants
title_full_unstemmed Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants
title_short Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants
title_sort descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants
topic Original Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7216945/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32128913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pds.4971
work_keys_str_mv AT panejosep descriptiveanalysisofpostmarketsurveillancedataforhipimplants
AT verhammekatiamc descriptiveanalysisofpostmarketsurveillancedataforhipimplants
AT rebolloirene descriptiveanalysisofpostmarketsurveillancedataforhipimplants
AT sturkenboommiriamcjm descriptiveanalysisofpostmarketsurveillancedataforhipimplants