153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28228288)
1. FDA, CE mark or something else?-Thinking fast and slow.
Mishra S
Indian Heart J; 2017; 69(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 28228288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Contrasting clinical evidence for market authorisation of cardio-vascular devices in Europe and the USA: a systematic analysis of 10 devices based on Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments.
Wild C; Erdös J; Zechmeister I
BMC Cardiovasc Disord; 2014 Nov; 14():154. PubMed ID: 25366498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. FDA regulation of invasive neural recording electrodes: a daunting task for medical innovators.
Welle C; Krauthamer V
IEEE Pulse; 2012 Mar; 3(2):37-41. PubMed ID: 22481744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Substantial Equivalence Premarket Review: the Right Approach for Most Medical Devices.
Shapiro JK
Food Drug Law J; 2014; 69(3):365-97, i. PubMed ID: 27382855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The Food and Drug Administration and atrial defibrillation devices.
Chen L; Keane AT; Every NR
Am J Manag Care; 1999 Jul; 5(7):899-909. PubMed ID: 10557410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Medical devices; substantial equivalence; 510(K) summaries and 510(K) statements; class III summaries; confidentiality of information--FDA. Final rule.
Fed Regist; 1994 Dec; 59(239):64287-96. PubMed ID: 10139433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. FDA regulation of liquid chemical germicides and medical device cleaners.
Schwab P
Exec Housekeep Today; 1995 Mar; 16(3):21-2; quiz 23. PubMed ID: 10143008
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Medical devices; medical device reporting; baseline reports; stay of effective date--FDA. Final rule.
Fed Regist; 1996 Jul; 61(148):39868-9. PubMed ID: 10159600
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Regulation and Device Development: Tips for Optimizing Your Experience With the Food and Drug Administration.
Brooks SS
Tech Vasc Interv Radiol; 2017 Jun; 20(2):109-115. PubMed ID: 28673647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Technology assessment of medical devices at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
Kessler L; Richter K
Am J Manag Care; 1998 Sep; 4 Spec No():SP129-35. PubMed ID: 10185989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Who is responsible for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medical devices? The role of independent technology assessment.
Feldman MD; Petersen AJ; Karliner LS; Tice JA
J Gen Intern Med; 2008 Jan; 23 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):57-63. PubMed ID: 18095046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effective date of requirement for premarket approval for cardiovascular permanent pacemaker electrode. Final rule.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS
Fed Regist; 2012 Jul; 77(130):39924-7. PubMed ID: 22792583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An overview of Food and Drug Administration regulation of drugs, biologics, and devices to be used for management of periodontal diseases.
Tylenda CA; Weintraub M
Ann Periodontol; 1997 Mar; 2(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 9151539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. New technology in electrophysiology: FDA process and perspective.
Selzman KA; Fellman M; Farb A; de Del Castillo S; Zuckerman B
J Interv Card Electrophysiol; 2016 Oct; 47(1):11-18. PubMed ID: 27020440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. How do Orthopaedic Devices Change After Their Initial FDA Premarket Approval?
Samuel AM; Rathi VK; Grauer JN; Ross JS
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2016 Apr; 474(4):1053-68. PubMed ID: 26584802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Regulatory aspects of invasive glucose measurements.
Gutman S; Bernhardt P; Pinkos A; Moxey-Mims M; Knott T; Cooper J
Diabetes Technol Ther; 2002; 4(6):775-7. PubMed ID: 12685800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Regulation of medical devices in radiology: current standards and future opportunities.
Smith JJ
Radiology; 2001 Feb; 218(2):329-35. PubMed ID: 11161144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Medical devices; 30-day notices and 135-day PMA (premarket approval application) supplement review; companion document to direct final rule--FDA. Proposed rule.
Fed Regist; 1998 Apr; 63(80 Pt 1):20558-61. PubMed ID: 10179320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Defending substantial equivalence: an argument for the continuing validity of the 510(k) premarket notification process.
Flaherty JM
Food Drug Law J; 2008; 63(4):901-27. PubMed ID: 19601388
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Medical devices; 30-day notices and 135-day PMA (premarket approval application) supplement review--FDA. Direct final rule.
Fed Regist; 1998 Apr; 63(80 Pt 1):20530-3. PubMed ID: 10179319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
