Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices

References

• Activity report of the National committee for the evaluation of medical devices and health technologies Available from: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/ra-cnedimts_2011.pdf
   Google Scholar
• StordeurSVinckINeytMVan BrabandtHHulstaertFIntroduction of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe: are clinical efficacy and safety guaranteed?Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique2013612105110 French23477881
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storz-PfennigPSchmeddersMDettloffMTrials are needed before new devices are used in routine practice in Europe. As the EU debates new legislation to regulate medical devicesBMJ2013346f164623507537
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VinckINeytMThiryNAn evaluation procedure for the emerging medical technologies. Belgian health care knowledge centre (KCE) BruxellesKCE Reports 442006
   Google Scholar
• BernardALe développement clinique des nouveaux dispositifs médicaux [Clinical development of new medical devices]e-memoires de l’académie nationale de chirurgie20121142731 French
   Google Scholar
• BernardAVicautEMedical devices. First party: what type of study is needed?Medicine20084464467
   Google Scholar
• BednarskaEBryantDDevereauxPJExpertise-Based Working GroupOrthopaedic surgeons prefer to participate in expertise-based randomized trialsClin Orthop Relat Res200846671734174418446421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BoutronITubachFGiraudeauBRavaudPMethodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritisJAMA200329081062107012941679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JuniPAltmannDGEggerMAssessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Systematic reviews in health careBMJ20013237303424611440947
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BoutronIMoherDTugwellPA checklist to evaluate a report of nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensusJ Clin Epidemiol200558121233124016291467
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BoutronIGuittetLEstellatCMoherDHrobjartssonARavaudPReporting methods of blinding in randomised trials assessing nonpharmacological treatmentsPLos Med200742e6117311468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KinnaertPFactual surgery: ethics and methodologyRev Med Brux20062745145817144645
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• KinnaerPPlacebo and placebo effect (second part): ethical aspectsRev Med Brux20072813944 French17427678
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• RavaudPAssessment of nonpharmacological treatments4ème conference d’epidemiologie CliniqueMay 26–28, 2010Paris
   Google Scholar
• LiHYueLQStatistical and regulatory issues in nonrandomized medical device clinical studiesJ Biopharm Stat2008181203018161539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacklinRThe ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical researchN Engl J Med19993411399299610498498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacklinRPlacebo surgery in trials of therapy for parkinson’s diseaseN Engl J Med2000342535510660400
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ErginaPLCookJABlazebyJMChallenges in evaluating surgical innovationLancet200937496951097110419782875
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RudicelSEsdaileJThe randomized clinical trial in orthopaedics: obligation or option?J Bone Joint Surg Am198567-A81284129311650735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CampbellGStatistics in the world of medical devices: the contrast with pharmaceuticalsJ Biopharm Stat200818141918161538
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZelenMA new design for randomized clinical trialsN Engl J Med19793002212421245431682
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZelenMInnovations in the design of clinical trials in breast cancerBreast Cancer Res Treat1983321371426616074
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZelenMStrategy and alternate randomized designs in cancer clinical trialsCancer Treat Rep1982665109511007083213
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ZelenMRandomized consent designs for clinical trials: an updateStat Med1990966456562218168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HorwitzRIFeinsteinARAdvantages and drawbacks of the Zelen design for randomized clinical trialsJ Clin Pharmacol19802074254277430410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FengKYanJLiXA randomized controlled trial of radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomaJ Hepatol2012575479480222634125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DevereauxPJBhandariMClarkeMNeed for expertise based randomized controlled trialsBMJ20053307482889115637373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MastracciTMClaseCMDevereauxPJCinaCSOpen versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a suvey of Canadian vascular surgeonsCan J Surg200851214214818377756
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDermidJCHoltbyRRazmjouHAll-arthroscopic versus mini-open repair of small or moderate-sized rotator cuff tears: a protocol for a randomized trial [NCT00128076]BMC Musculoskelet Disord200672516529658
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LilfordRJBraunholzDAGreenhalghREdwardsSJTrials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker studiesBMJ20003207226434610617532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GiraudeauBRavaudPPreventing bias in cluster randomized trialsPLos Med200965e100006519536323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CampbellMJCluster randomized trials in general practice researchStat Methods Med Res200092819410946428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ElbourneDRAltmanDGHigginsJPCurtinFWorthingtonHVMeta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issuesInt J Epidemiol200231114014911914310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HillsMArmitagePThe two-period cross-over clinical trialBr J Clin Pharmacol197981720552299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchejerlingLHjermindLJespersenBA randomized double-blind crossover trial comparing subthalamic and pallidal deep brain stimulation for dystoniaJ Neurosurg201311961537154524116723
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ArmitagePSequential Medical Trials2nd edNew YorkWiley1975
   Google Scholar
• PocockSJGroup sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trialsBiometrika1977642191199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’BrienPCFlemingTRA multiple testing procedure for clinical trialsBiometrics1979353549556497341
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PetoRPikeMCArmitagePDesign and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and designBr J Cancer1976346585612795448
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FalissardBLellouchJA new procedure for group sequential analysis in clinical trialsBiometrics19924823733881637967
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClaytonDGEthically optimised designsBr J Clin Pharmacol19821344694807066161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der LeeJHWesselingJTanckMWOffringaMEfficient ways exist to obtain the optimal sample size in clinical trials in rare diseaseJ Clin Epidemiol200861432433018313556
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SebilleVBellissantEComparison of four sequential methods allowing for early stopping of comparative clinical trialsClin Sci (Lond)200098556957810781388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HamiltonCLuMLewisSAndersonWSequential design for clinical trials evaluating a prosthetic heart valveAnn Thorac Surg20129341162116622088419
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BauerPBrannathWThe advantages and disadvantages of adaptive designs for clinical trialsDrug Discov Today20049835135715081962
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SimonRAdaptive treatment assignment methods and clinical trialsBiometrics1977334743749338044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LellouchJSchwartzDTherapeutic trial: individual or collective ethicsRev Inst Int Stat197139127136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guidance for the use of bayesian statistics in medical device clinical trial Center for devices and radiological health, center for biologics evaluation and researchSilver Spring, RockvilleCDRH, CBER2006 Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationGuidance/GuidanceDocumentation/ucmo071121.pdfAccessed August 31, 2014
   Google Scholar
• BerrySMCarlinBPLeeJJMullerPBayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical TrialsEd Chapman and HallCRC Biostatistics series2011
   Google Scholar
• CampbellGBayesian statistics in medical devices: innovation sparked by the FDAJ Biopharm Stat201121587188721830920
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PibouleauLChevretSBayesian statistical method was underused despite its advantages in the assessment of implantable medical devicesJ Clin Epidemiol201164327027920800443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WilberDJPapponeCNeuzilPComparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. A randomized controlled trialJAMA2010303433334020103757
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RosenbaumPRRubinDBReducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity scoreJ Am Stat Assoc198479516524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RosenbaumPRRubinDBThe central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effectsBiometrika19837014155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YueLQStatistical and regulatory issues with the application of propensity score analysis to nonrandomized medical device clinical studiesJ Biopharm Stat200717111317219753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StuartEAMatching methods for causal inference: a review and a lookStat Sci201025112120871802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AustinPCAn introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studiesMultivariate Behav Res201146339942421818162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RosenbaumPRDiscussing hidden bias in observational studiesAnn Intern Med1991115119019051952480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DahabrehIJSheldrickRCPaulusJKDo observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromesEur Heart J201233151893190122711757
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar