随机选择髋关节和膝关节假体时,来自科学报告、制造商、登记册和其他来源的安全信号频率。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Yijun Ren, Lotje A Hoogervorst, Enrico G Caiani, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, James A Smith, Alan G Fraser, Rob G H H Nelissen, Anne Lübbeke
{"title":"随机选择髋关节和膝关节假体时,来自科学报告、制造商、登记册和其他来源的安全信号频率。","authors":"Yijun Ren, Lotje A Hoogervorst, Enrico G Caiani, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, James A Smith, Alan G Fraser, Rob G H H Nelissen, Anne Lübbeke","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2025.44035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong> The safety and performance of hip and knee prostheses can be assessed by analyzing peer-reviewed literature, registry reports, and safety notices published by national competent authorities/regulatory agencies, or manufacturers. The percentage of hip and knee prostheses with a safety signal published through any of these data sources is unknown. We aimed to assess the frequency of signals identified for a random sample of 10 hip stems, 10 hip cups, and 10 knee implants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> 3 literature libraries were searched to find safety signals defined as information on patterns/occurrences that may alter the device's benefit-risk profile, reported in peer-reviewed publications for the randomly selected implants. Annual registry reports from 5 national registries were examined to check whether any of the selected implants had outlier performance. The CORE-MD post-market surveillance (PMS) tool was used to collect all related safety notices from 13 competent authority/regulatory agency websites. Manufacturers' websites were screened for any reported safety information.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Safety signals were identified for 21 of the 30 randomly selected implants: 18 identified by registries, 7 by the CORE-MD PMS tool, and 8 based on literature, with 10 implants identified by multiple sources. There was no systematic pattern in timing of publication with a particular source publishing safety signals earlier than other sources.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> 70% of the randomly selected hip and knee prostheses had ≥ 1 safety signals published, with registries as the source for the majority. No single source identified all 21 implants with signals, which highlights the need for a comprehensive surveillance strategy to aggregate safety signals from multiple sources.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"96 ","pages":"460-466"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12188684/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frequency of safety signals from scientific reports, manufactures, registers, and other sources for a random selection of hip and knee prostheses.\",\"authors\":\"Yijun Ren, Lotje A Hoogervorst, Enrico G Caiani, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, James A Smith, Alan G Fraser, Rob G H H Nelissen, Anne Lübbeke\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/17453674.2025.44035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong> The safety and performance of hip and knee prostheses can be assessed by analyzing peer-reviewed literature, registry reports, and safety notices published by national competent authorities/regulatory agencies, or manufacturers. The percentage of hip and knee prostheses with a safety signal published through any of these data sources is unknown. We aimed to assess the frequency of signals identified for a random sample of 10 hip stems, 10 hip cups, and 10 knee implants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> 3 literature libraries were searched to find safety signals defined as information on patterns/occurrences that may alter the device's benefit-risk profile, reported in peer-reviewed publications for the randomly selected implants. Annual registry reports from 5 national registries were examined to check whether any of the selected implants had outlier performance. The CORE-MD post-market surveillance (PMS) tool was used to collect all related safety notices from 13 competent authority/regulatory agency websites. Manufacturers' websites were screened for any reported safety information.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Safety signals were identified for 21 of the 30 randomly selected implants: 18 identified by registries, 7 by the CORE-MD PMS tool, and 8 based on literature, with 10 implants identified by multiple sources. There was no systematic pattern in timing of publication with a particular source publishing safety signals earlier than other sources.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> 70% of the randomly selected hip and knee prostheses had ≥ 1 safety signals published, with registries as the source for the majority. No single source identified all 21 implants with signals, which highlights the need for a comprehensive surveillance strategy to aggregate safety signals from multiple sources.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"volume\":\"96 \",\"pages\":\"460-466\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12188684/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:通过分析同行评审文献、注册报告和国家主管部门/监管机构或制造商发布的安全通知,可以评估髋关节和膝关节假体的安全性和性能。通过这些数据来源公布的具有安全信号的髋关节和膝关节假体的百分比是未知的。我们的目的是评估10个髋关节干、10个髋关节杯和10个膝关节植入物随机样本识别的信号频率。方法:检索3个文献库,寻找安全信号,安全信号定义为随机选择的植入物在同行评议的出版物中报道的可能改变设备收益-风险概况的模式/事件的信息。我们检查了来自5个国家注册中心的年度注册报告,以检查是否有任何选择的植入物具有异常性能。使用CORE-MD上市后监测(PMS)工具从13个主管部门/监管机构网站收集所有相关的安全通知。对制造商的网站进行了检查,以查看任何报告的安全信息。结果:在30个随机选择的种植体中,有21个获得了安全信号:18个通过注册表识别,7个通过CORE-MD PMS工具识别,8个基于文献,10个种植体通过多种来源识别。在发布时间上没有系统的模式,特定来源比其他来源更早发布安全信号。结论:70%的随机选择的髋关节和膝关节假体公布了≥1个安全信号,注册表是大多数的来源。没有一个单一的来源识别出所有21个植入物的信号,这突出了综合监测策略的必要性,以聚合来自多个来源的安全信号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Frequency of safety signals from scientific reports, manufactures, registers, and other sources for a random selection of hip and knee prostheses.

Background and purpose:  The safety and performance of hip and knee prostheses can be assessed by analyzing peer-reviewed literature, registry reports, and safety notices published by national competent authorities/regulatory agencies, or manufacturers. The percentage of hip and knee prostheses with a safety signal published through any of these data sources is unknown. We aimed to assess the frequency of signals identified for a random sample of 10 hip stems, 10 hip cups, and 10 knee implants.

Methods:  3 literature libraries were searched to find safety signals defined as information on patterns/occurrences that may alter the device's benefit-risk profile, reported in peer-reviewed publications for the randomly selected implants. Annual registry reports from 5 national registries were examined to check whether any of the selected implants had outlier performance. The CORE-MD post-market surveillance (PMS) tool was used to collect all related safety notices from 13 competent authority/regulatory agency websites. Manufacturers' websites were screened for any reported safety information.

Results:  Safety signals were identified for 21 of the 30 randomly selected implants: 18 identified by registries, 7 by the CORE-MD PMS tool, and 8 based on literature, with 10 implants identified by multiple sources. There was no systematic pattern in timing of publication with a particular source publishing safety signals earlier than other sources.

Conclusion:  70% of the randomly selected hip and knee prostheses had ≥ 1 safety signals published, with registries as the source for the majority. No single source identified all 21 implants with signals, which highlights the need for a comprehensive surveillance strategy to aggregate safety signals from multiple sources.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
×
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