EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 319 (2021) E3S Web Conf., 319 (2021) 01086 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 319, 2021
International Congress on Health Vigilance (VIGISAN 2021)
Article Number 01086
Number of page(s) 8
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202131901086
Published online 09 November 2021
  1. Décret N° 2-14-607 Relative aux Dispositifs Médicaux. [Google Scholar]
  2. S. J. Choi, K. C. Nam, S. Choi, J. K. Kim, Y. K. Lee, et B. S. Kwon, The establishment of the Korean medical device safety information monitoring center: Reviewing ten years of experience, Health Policy, 2021, [Google Scholar]
  3. S. Mishra, FDA, CE mark or something else? Thinking fast and slow », Indian Heart Journal, vol. 69, nº 1, p. 1–5, 2017, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. D. B. Kramer, Y. T. Tan, C. Sato, et A. S. Kesselheim, « Postmarket Surveillance of Medical Devices: A Comparison of Strategies in the US, EU, Japan, and China », PLoS Med, vol. 10, nº 9, 2013, [Google Scholar]
  5. C. Karas, US Food and Drug Administration Unique Device Identifier Rule: Perioperative Basics, AORN Journal, vol. 103, nº 3, p. 329–332, (2016), [Google Scholar]
  6. A. Fouretier et D. Bertram, New regulations on medical devices in Europe: What to expect? , Expert Review of Medical Devices, vol. 11, nº 4, p. 351–359, 2014, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. N. Tau and D. Shepshelovich, Assessment of data sources that support US food and drug administration medical devices safety communications », JAMA Internal Medicine, 2020, [Google Scholar]
  8. Règlement (ue) 2017/ 745 du parlement européen et du conseil - du 5 avril 2017 - relatif aux dispositifs médicaux, modifiant la directive 2001/ 83/ CE, le règlement (CE) nº 178/ 2002 et le règlement (CE) nº 1223/ 2009 et abrogeant les directives du Conseil 90/ 385/ CEE et 93/ 42/ CEE », p. 175. [Google Scholar]
  9. Règles de certification des systèmes de management de la qualite spécifiques aux dispositifs médicaux à des fins réglementaires selon la norme NM ISO 13485, RCSMDM,2016, [Google Scholar]
  10. Circulaire n° 3,DMP, Ministère de la santé, 28-01-1997. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dispositifs Médicaux au Maroc , (2020). [Google Scholar]
  12. El Falaki, L. Zerrouk, E. Saad, Enquête sur le management des risques liés aux dispositifs médicaux dans les établissements hospitaliers marocains »IRBM News, 2020 [Google Scholar]
  13. A. M. Ibrahim et J. B. Dimick, « Monitoring Medical Devices: Missed Warning Signs within Existing Data », JAMA, vol. 318, nº 4, p. 327–328, juill. 2017, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. V. D. Vidi, M. E. Matheny, S. Donnelly, et F. S. Resnic, An evaluation of a distributed medical device safety surveillance system: The DELTA network study, Contemporary Clinical Trials, vol. 32, nº 3, p. 309–317, mai 2011, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. C.-W. Lan, M.-K. Yeh, S.-I. Wu, et P.-W. Tu, Current development in medical devices postmarket surveillance in Taiwan, Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, vol. 23, nº 1, p. 164–165, 2015, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. J. L. Wong et P. Teysseyre, Fundamentals of medical device approval in the Asia Pacific region, in Regulatory Affairs for Biomaterials and Medical Devices, Woodhead Publishing, 2015, p. 159–174. [Google Scholar]
  17. E. Ivanovska, J. T. Ribarska, J. Lazova, N. Popstefanova, M. D. Jovanoska, and S. T. Jolevska, Providing clinical evidence under the MDR 2017/745 – new challenges for manufacturers in medical device industry , Arhiv za Farmaciju, vol. 69, nº 1, p. 39–49, 2019, [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. C. Zippel and S. Bohnet-Joschko, Post market surveillance in the german medical device sector – current state and future perspectives , Health Policy, vol. 121, nº 8, p. 880–886, 2017, [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. A. G. Fraser, E.G. Butchart,P. Szymański, The need for transparency of clinical evidence for medical devices in Europe », The Lancet, vol. 392, nº 10146, p. 521–530, 2018, [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. C. Niederländer, P. Wahlster, C. Kriza, et P. Kolominsky-Rabas, Registries of implantable medical devices in Europe , Health Policy, vol. 113, nº 1, p. 20–37, 2013, [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. D. S. Mulder et J. Spicer, Registry-Based Medical Research: Data Dredging or Value Building to Quality of Care? , The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 108, nº 1, p. 274–282, juill. 2019, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. B. Lassale, J. Ragni, et L. Succamiele, « Computerization of health warnings and incident reports for Materials Vigilance in the Marseille Public Hospitals », Transfusion Clinique et Biologique, vol. 25, nº 2, p. 144–147, 2018, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. T. Bayrak et F. Özdiler Çopur, Evaluation of the unique device identification system and an approach for medical device tracking , Health Policy and Technology, vol. 6, nº 2, p. 234–241, juin 2017, [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. T. P. Gross et J. Crowley, Unique device identification in the service of public health, New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 367, nº 17, p. 1583–1585, 2012, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. J. Waston, A. Howarth, N. Wilson, Value of Unique Device Identifiers in Plastic Surgery, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, Oxford Academic ,2018, [Google Scholar]
  26. N. Parvizi, I. Robertson, and R. G. McWilliams, Medical device adverse incident reporting in interventional radiology, Clinical Radiology, vol. 69, nº 3, p. 263–267, 2014, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. J. Pane, K. M. C. Verhamme, D. Villegas, L. Gamez, I. Rebollo, and M. C. J. M. Sturkenboom, Challenges associated with the safety signal detection process for medical devices, Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, vol. 14, p. 43–57, 2021, [Google Scholar]
  28. P. V. Rajan, D. B. Kramer, and A. S. Kesselheim, Medical Device Postapproval Safety Monitoring Where Does the United States Stand?, Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes, vol. 8, nº 1, p. 124–131, 2015, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. T. L. Reed, J.P. Drozda, K.M. Baskin, Advancing medical device innovation through collaboration and coordination of structured data capture pilots: Report from the Medical Device Epidemiology Network (MDEpiNet) Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-Oriented, Time Bound (SMART) Think Tank , Healthcare, vol. 5, nº 4, p. 158–164,2017, [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. C. C. Otto, S. M. Freire, and R. T. De Almeida, Systematization of information for identifying similar cardiovascular implantable devices, Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Biomedica, vol. 31, nº 1, p. 70–77, 2015, [Google Scholar]
  31. N. Wilson, J. Broatch, M. Jehn, et C. Davis, National projections of time, cost and failure in implantable device identification: Consideration of unique device identification use, Healthcare, vol. 3, nº 4, p. 196–201, déc. 2015, [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. N. Gauthier, J. Jezequel, E. Desaintfuscien, N. Guenault, et C. Bonenfant, Systèmes de codification des dispositifs médicaux à traçabilité obligatoire : les fabricants doivent s’améliorer , Le Pharmacien Hospitalier, vol. 46, nº 1, p. 30–35, mars 2011, [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. R. Beckers, Z. Kwade, et F. Zanca, The EU medical device regulation: Implications for artificial intelligence-based medical device software in medical physics , Physica Medica, vol. 83, p. 1–8, 2021, [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. M. Charlesworth et A. A. J. van Zundert, Medical device regulation: the need for clinical vigilance and oversight, Anaesthesia, vol. 74, nº 6, p. 693–695, 2019, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. E. K. Ghandour et M.-P. Gagnon, Avantages, effets et préoccupations reliés au dossier de santé personnel électronique (DSPé): Une mise à jour de la littérature. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. A. Fouretier et D. Bertram, New regulations on medical devices in Europe: what to expect? , Expert Review of Medical Devices, vol. 11, nº 4, p. 351–359, juill. 2014, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. A. Anastasiou, Z.B. Bliznakov, A. Deligiannakis, Information Extraction, Matching and Reporting for Medical Devices Vigilance , in 6th European Conference of the International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering, vol. 45, 2015, [Google Scholar]
  38. K. Tsuyuki, K. Yano, N. Watanabe, A. Aruga, et M. Yamato, Compassionate use of drugs and medical devices in the United States, the European Union and Japan , Regenerative Therapy, vol. 4, p. 18–26, 2016, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. R. Tarricone, O. Ciani, S. D’Acunto, et S. Scalzo, The rise of rules: Will the new EU regulation of medical devices make us safer? , European Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 80, p. 117–120, 2020, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. N. Tau et D. Shepshelovich, Assessment of data sources that support US food and drug administration medical devices safety communications, JAMA Internal Medicine, 2020, [Google Scholar]
  41. N. A. Wilson, M. Jehn, S. York, and C. M. Davis, Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Implant Identification: Implications for Use of Unique Device Identification 2012 AAHKS Member Survey Results », The Journal of Arthroplasty, vol. 29, nº 2, p. 251–255, 2014, [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. S. Ramakrishna, L. Tian, C. Wang, S. Liao, et W. E. Teo, 10 - Global harmonization of medical devices , in Medical Devices, S. Ramakrishna, L. Tian, C. Wang, S. Liao, et W. E. Teo, Éd. Woodhead Publishing, 2015, p. 207–213. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.