Methodologies for the benefit-risk analysis of medical devices: a systematic review.

Oscar Freyer, Fatemeh Jahed, Max Ostermann, Mirko Feig, Stephen Gilbert
{"title":"Methodologies for the benefit-risk analysis of medical devices: a systematic review.","authors":"Oscar Freyer, Fatemeh Jahed, Max Ostermann, Mirko Feig, Stephen Gilbert","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2025.2517168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of medical devices (MDs) carries both benefits and risks. Regulatory frameworks mandate the weighing of both through a benefit-risk analysis (BRA). This review aims to identify existing BRA methodologies and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses to evaluate their sufficiency in guiding developers and regulators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search following PRISMA-S was conducted in five databases. Peer-reviewed publications were included when they described BRA methodologies for MDs. Publications on unrelated technologies, pharmaceuticals, non-English publications, and with insufficient descriptions were excluded. The methods were summarized and assessed for their degree of objectivity and for the use of numerical calculations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 918 records, with 17 meeting the inclusion criteria, describing 16 methods. The methods varied in their reliance on numerical calculations and their degree of objectivity, with a significant correlation between both.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that quantitative methods involve subjective decisions, particularly in endpoint identification and relevance assignment, which means they cannot eliminate the subjectivity and bias for which qualitative methods are criticized. The findings support previous observations of ambiguity in the regulatory process, amplified by technologies with hard-to-quantify risks, and suggest that current BRA methodologies are often limited and may be insufficient to guide developers and regulators.</p><p><strong>Protocol registration: </strong>https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RT4SV, identifier is osf.io/rt4sv.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2025.2517168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The use of medical devices (MDs) carries both benefits and risks. Regulatory frameworks mandate the weighing of both through a benefit-risk analysis (BRA). This review aims to identify existing BRA methodologies and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses to evaluate their sufficiency in guiding developers and regulators.

Methods: A literature search following PRISMA-S was conducted in five databases. Peer-reviewed publications were included when they described BRA methodologies for MDs. Publications on unrelated technologies, pharmaceuticals, non-English publications, and with insufficient descriptions were excluded. The methods were summarized and assessed for their degree of objectivity and for the use of numerical calculations.

Results: The search identified 918 records, with 17 meeting the inclusion criteria, describing 16 methods. The methods varied in their reliance on numerical calculations and their degree of objectivity, with a significant correlation between both.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that quantitative methods involve subjective decisions, particularly in endpoint identification and relevance assignment, which means they cannot eliminate the subjectivity and bias for which qualitative methods are criticized. The findings support previous observations of ambiguity in the regulatory process, amplified by technologies with hard-to-quantify risks, and suggest that current BRA methodologies are often limited and may be insufficient to guide developers and regulators.

Protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RT4SV, identifier is osf.io/rt4sv.

医疗器械收益-风险分析方法:系统综述。
简介:医疗器械(MDs)的使用既有益处,也有风险。监管框架要求通过利益风险分析(BRA)对两者进行权衡。本文旨在识别现有的BRA方法,并评估其优缺点,以评估其在指导开发者和监管者方面的充分性。方法:采用PRISMA-S在5个数据库中进行文献检索。当他们描述医学博士的BRA方法时,同行评审的出版物被包括在内。不相关的技术、药品、非英文出版物和描述不充分的出版物被排除在外。总结和评估了这些方法的客观性和使用数值计算的程度。结果:检索到918条记录,其中17条符合纳入标准,描述了16种方法。这些方法对数值计算的依赖程度和客观程度各不相同,两者之间存在显著的相关性。结论:我们的研究结果表明,定量方法涉及主观决策,特别是在终点识别和相关性分配方面,这意味着它们无法消除定性方法所批评的主观性和偏见。这些发现支持了之前关于监管过程中模糊性的观察,并被难以量化风险的技术放大,并表明当前的BRA方法通常是有限的,可能不足以指导开发商和监管者。协议注册:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RT4SV,标识符为osf.io/rt4sv。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信