首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Medical Devices (Auckland N.Z.) >Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices
【2h】

Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices

机译:医疗器械临床开发的方法选择

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:可用于评估医疗设备(MD)的临床证据经常不足。新的医学博士应接受高质量的临床研究,以证明其对患者的益处。随机对照试验(RCT)是达到最高证据水平的研究设计,目的是证明新型MD的疗效。然而,某些医学博士的临床背景使其难以进行常规的RCT。本文的目的是提出与进行常规RCT相关的问题,并确定其他实验设计,其局限性及其应用。通过检索医学书目数据库,对2000年1月至2012年7月进行了系统的文献检索。确定了与进行MD常规RCT相关的问题:评估时间安排,合格人群和招募,可接受性,盲目性,比较组选择和学习曲线。已经描述了其他类型的实验设计。 Zelen的设计试验和随机同意设计试验有助于招募患者,但可能引起道德问题。基于专业知识的RCT涉及随机分配到专门研究给定干预措施的团队。有时,基于专业知识的随机试验的可行性可能大于常规试验的可行性。交叉试验减少了患者数量,但不适用于需要学习曲线的情况。顺序试验的优点是,根据首次纳入的结果,允许尽早停止试验,但需要一个独立的委员会。贝叶斯方法将现有信息与正在进行的试验中的信息结合在一起。这些方法在对象数量少的情况下特别有用。缺点是可能包含错误的先验信息。当常规试验不能总是应用于MD的临床开发时,存在其他类型的实验设计。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号