The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Medical Device Recalls and the FDA Approval Process
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unlike prescription drugs, medical devices are reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using 2 alternative regulatory standards: (1) premarket approval (PMA), which requires clinical testing and inspections; or (2) the 510(k) process, which requires that the device be similar to a device already marketed (predicate device). The second standard is intended for devices that the FDA deems to involve low or moderate risk. METHODS: We analyzed the FDA's high-risk List of Device Recalls from 2005 through 2009. Using FDA data, we determined whether the recalled devices were approved by the more rigorous (PMA) process, the 510(k) process, or were exempt from FDA review. RESULTS: There were 113 recalls from 2005 through 2009 that the FDA determined could cause serious health problems or death. Only 21 of the 113 devices had been approved through the PMA process (19%). Eighty were cleared through the 510(k) process (71%), and an additional 8 were exempt from any FDA regulation (7%). Cardiovascular devices comprised the largest recall category, with 35 of the high-risk recalls (31%); two-thirds were cleared by the 510(k) process (66%; n = 23). Fifty-one percent of the high-risk recalls were in 5 other device categories: general hospital, anesthesiology, clinical chemistry, neurology, or ophthalmology. CONCLUSIONS: Most medical devices recalled for life-threatening or very serious hazards were originally cleared for market using the less stringent 510(k) process or were considered so low risk that they were exempt from review (78%). These findings suggest that reform of the regulatory process is needed to ensure the safety of medical devices.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The big picture on nanomedicine: the state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products
Etheridge, M. L., Campbell, S. A., Erdman, A. G., Haynes, C. L., Wolf, S. M., & McCullough, J. (2013) · Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.nano.2012.05.013 · Cited by 1,088
“However, the 510(k) device approval process has recently come under fire as a potential pathway for allowing unsatisfactory products to market.(92) Our study identified a significant number of nanomedicine products that were approved through the 510(k) process (Table 6), falling into general categories of bone substit…”
Laslett, L. J., Alagona, P., Clark, B. A., Drozda, J. P., Saldivar, F., Wilson, S. R., Poe, C., & Hart, M. (2012) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.002 · Cited by 768
Yaqoob, T., Abbas, H., & Atiquzzaman, M. (2019) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2019.2914094 · Cited by 236
Van Norman, G. A. (2016) · JACC: Basic to Translational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jacbts.2016.06.003 · Cited by 223
Improving Medical Device Regulation: The United States and Europe in Perspective
SORENSON, C., & DRUMMOND, M. (2014) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12043 · Cited by 170
Metadata
- Authors
- Zuckerman, D. M., Brown, P., & Nissen, S. E.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2011-06-13
- Volume
- 171
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1006-11
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2067869350
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Medical Device Recalls and the FDA Approval Process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.30
- The paper
- Zuckerman, D. M., Brown, P., & Nissen, S. E. (2011). Medical Device Recalls and the FDA Approval Process. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.30
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.