K. Dallas, Colby P. Souders, A. Caron, K. Clark, Ndidiamaka Obi, Lynn Mcclelland, B. Chughtai, K. Eilber, J. Anger
{"title":"制造商和用户设备设备经验报告与阴道网状物相关的事件:理解数据","authors":"K. Dallas, Colby P. Souders, A. Caron, K. Clark, Ndidiamaka Obi, Lynn Mcclelland, B. Chughtai, K. Eilber, J. Anger","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective The aim of this study was to examine potential bias in reports to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database involving vaginal mesh by identifying the party submitting the report, the nature of the complaints, and whether the reports were edited. Methods All reports submitted to the MAUDE database involving synthetic transvaginal mesh from January 2000 through December 2017 (40,266 safety reports) were identified. A random 2% sample (900) of these reports was reviewed in depth to determine the specific relevant details, including reporter type (patient, manufacturer, lawyer) and details of the complaint/injury. Results Of the 40,226 reports to MAUDE identified, 28,473 (70.7%) were sling reports, and 11,793 (29.3%) described mesh products augmenting pelvic organ prolapse repair. Of the 900 reports reviewed in depth, 46%, 41%, 10%, and 2% of entries were reported by the manufacturer, attorney, health care provider, and patients, respectively. In the 4 years after submission, 18.6% of reports were modified at least once. Conclusions The MAUDE database allows physicians, manufacturers, and patients to immediately report adverse events experienced due to medical devices. While this database is an important means to identify potential danger to patients, any individual can file a report and, thus, it should not be the sole source of evidence to consider when assessing device safety. Further, the MAUDE database provides no information into the total number of cases performed without complication.","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"28 1","pages":"332 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Reporting of Events Related to Transvaginal Mesh: Understanding the Data\",\"authors\":\"K. Dallas, Colby P. Souders, A. Caron, K. Clark, Ndidiamaka Obi, Lynn Mcclelland, B. Chughtai, K. Eilber, J. Anger\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective The aim of this study was to examine potential bias in reports to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database involving vaginal mesh by identifying the party submitting the report, the nature of the complaints, and whether the reports were edited. Methods All reports submitted to the MAUDE database involving synthetic transvaginal mesh from January 2000 through December 2017 (40,266 safety reports) were identified. A random 2% sample (900) of these reports was reviewed in depth to determine the specific relevant details, including reporter type (patient, manufacturer, lawyer) and details of the complaint/injury. Results Of the 40,226 reports to MAUDE identified, 28,473 (70.7%) were sling reports, and 11,793 (29.3%) described mesh products augmenting pelvic organ prolapse repair. Of the 900 reports reviewed in depth, 46%, 41%, 10%, and 2% of entries were reported by the manufacturer, attorney, health care provider, and patients, respectively. In the 4 years after submission, 18.6% of reports were modified at least once. Conclusions The MAUDE database allows physicians, manufacturers, and patients to immediately report adverse events experienced due to medical devices. While this database is an important means to identify potential danger to patients, any individual can file a report and, thus, it should not be the sole source of evidence to consider when assessing device safety. Further, the MAUDE database provides no information into the total number of cases performed without complication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"332 - 335\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001177\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001177","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Reporting of Events Related to Transvaginal Mesh: Understanding the Data
Objective The aim of this study was to examine potential bias in reports to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database involving vaginal mesh by identifying the party submitting the report, the nature of the complaints, and whether the reports were edited. Methods All reports submitted to the MAUDE database involving synthetic transvaginal mesh from January 2000 through December 2017 (40,266 safety reports) were identified. A random 2% sample (900) of these reports was reviewed in depth to determine the specific relevant details, including reporter type (patient, manufacturer, lawyer) and details of the complaint/injury. Results Of the 40,226 reports to MAUDE identified, 28,473 (70.7%) were sling reports, and 11,793 (29.3%) described mesh products augmenting pelvic organ prolapse repair. Of the 900 reports reviewed in depth, 46%, 41%, 10%, and 2% of entries were reported by the manufacturer, attorney, health care provider, and patients, respectively. In the 4 years after submission, 18.6% of reports were modified at least once. Conclusions The MAUDE database allows physicians, manufacturers, and patients to immediately report adverse events experienced due to medical devices. While this database is an important means to identify potential danger to patients, any individual can file a report and, thus, it should not be the sole source of evidence to consider when assessing device safety. Further, the MAUDE database provides no information into the total number of cases performed without complication.
期刊介绍:
Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.