Jalbert Jessica J, Ritchey Mary Elizabeth, Mi Xiaojuan, Chen Chih-Ying, Hammill Bradley G, Curtis Lesley H, Setoguchi Soko
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Nov 1;180(9):949-58. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu206. Epub 2014 Sep 25.
Medical devices play a vital role in diagnosing, treating, and preventing diseases and are an integral part of the health-care system. Many devices, including implantable medical devices, enter the market through a regulatory pathway that was not designed to assure safety and effectiveness. Several recent studies and high-profile device recalls have demonstrated the need for well-designed, valid postmarketing studies of medical devices. Medical device epidemiology is a relatively new field compared with pharmacoepidemiology, which for decades has been developed to assess the safety and effectiveness of medications. Many methodological considerations in pharmacoepidemiology apply to medical device epidemiology. Fundamental differences in mechanisms of action and use and in how exposure data are captured mean that comparative effectiveness studies of medical devices often necessitate additional and different considerations. In this paper, we discuss some of the most salient issues encountered in conducting comparative effectiveness research on implantable devices. We discuss special methodological considerations regarding the use of data sources, exposure and outcome definitions, timing of exposure, and sources of bias.
医疗设备在疾病的诊断、治疗和预防中发挥着至关重要的作用,是医疗保健系统不可或缺的一部分。许多设备,包括植入式医疗设备,是通过并非旨在确保安全性和有效性的监管途径进入市场的。最近的几项研究和备受瞩目的设备召回事件表明,需要对医疗设备进行精心设计、有效的上市后研究。与药物流行病学相比,医疗设备流行病学是一个相对较新的领域,几十年来,药物流行病学一直在发展,以评估药物的安全性和有效性。药物流行病学中的许多方法学考量也适用于医疗设备流行病学。作用机制、使用方式以及暴露数据获取方式的根本差异意味着,医疗设备的比较有效性研究往往需要额外且不同的考量。在本文中,我们讨论了在进行植入式设备比较有效性研究时遇到的一些最突出的问题。我们讨论了有关数据源使用、暴露和结局定义、暴露时间以及偏倚来源的特殊方法学考量。