↓ Skip to main content

Approval of High-Risk Medical Devices in the US: Implications for Clinical Cardiology

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Approval of High-Risk Medical Devices in the US: Implications for Clinical Cardiology
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11886-014-0489-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin N. Rome, Daniel B. Kramer, Aaron S. Kesselheim

Abstract

Since 1976, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used the premarket approval (PMA) process to approve high-risk medical devices, including implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), coronary stents, and artificial heart valves. The PMA process is widely viewed as a rigorous evaluation of device safety and effectiveness, though recent recalls-most notably related to underperforming ICD leads-have raised concerns about whether physicians and patients should sometimes be more wary about devices approved via this pathway. The FDA must utilize a "least burdensome" approach to approve new medical devices, and many widely used device models have been approved as supplements to existing PMA-approved devices with limited clinical testing. A recent Supreme Court ruling has made it difficult for patients harmed by unsafe PMA-approved devices to seek damages in court. Cardiologists who utilize high-risk medical devices should be aware that FDA approval of new devices relies on variable levels of evidence and does not necessarily indicate improved effectiveness over existing models. Clinician and patient engagement in postmarket surveillance and comparative effectiveness research remains imperative.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Engineering 9 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Unspecified 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,651,286
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#63
of 995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,718
of 227,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.