Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41429289›Full record

ArticleChest2026

Clinical Evidence to Support US Food and Drug Administration Review of New Medical Technology in Pulmonary, Sleep, and Critical Care Medicine Between 2014 and 2024: A Scoping Review to Support Adoption in Practice.

Jack T Gardner, Jonathan A Busam, Eric D Shah

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Chest, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jack T GardnerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Virginia, VA.
Jonathan A BusamDepartment of Internal Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI.
Eric D ShahDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: ershah@umich.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChest medicine relies extensively on medical devices that comprise medical technology, artificial intelligence, software applications, and digital health; however, a comprehensive assessment of the evidence supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval/clearance of these devices is lacking. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the trends and evidence related to new medical devices across chest medicine? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsWe performed a scoping review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines to assess medical devices approved or cleared by the FDA between June 1, 2014, and June 30, 2024.

resultsA total of 790 new devices were FDA-approved or cleared in the last decade. Of these, 98% of devices were cleared through a 510k pathway, indicating they were deemed similar to other products already on the market. Almost all Premarket Approval devices and one-half of De Novo devices were approved/classified using clinical data that measured objective clinical primary outcomes rather than patient-reported primary outcomes.

interpretationOur results show that approval for new medical devices in pulmonary, sleep, and critical care medicine largely depends on establishing equivalence to existing devices. Clinical trials are generally reserved for higher-risk devices that are interventional in nature or monitor the patient's status.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyCritical CareDevice ApprovalPulmonary MedicineSleep Medicine SpecialtyUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationHumansUnited Statesequivalence demonstrationmedical device regulation (MDR)medical devicesregulatory approvalUS Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Identifiers

PMID41429289
PMCPMC13084739

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.