This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Charles Marwick

JAMA. 2000;283:869.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Bethesda, Md—Data on what happens to medical devices after they are implanted in patients, as well as information on how patients respond to the implants, is essential for improving devices such as pacemakers, intraocular lenses, and artificial joints, reported a National Institutes of Health (NIH) technology assessment panel last month.

But setting up a universal system for the long-term study of experience with such devices would be cost-prohibitive and, even if funds were available, would not be feasible, said the consensus panel, which was sponsored by the Office of Medical Applications of Research and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Too many barriers—even if not all are insurmountable—would have to be overcome. Such barriers include patient confidentiality, threats of litigation, and ethical and cultural concerns about such issues as retrieving a device from a patient after death.

Twenty million to 25 million US patients are estimated . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Localized Immunosuppressive Environment in the Foreign Body Response to Implanted Biomaterials
Higgins et al.
Am. J. Pathol. 2009;175:161-170.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Patients' Expectations of Knee Surgery
Mancuso et al.
JBJS 2001;83:1005-1012.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT