%0 Journal Article
%T Existing reporting guidelines for clinical trials are not completely relevant for implantable medical devices: a systematic review.
%A Motte AF
%A Diallo S
%A van den Brink H
%A Châteauvieux C
%A Serrano C
%A Naud C
%A Steelandt J
%A Alsac JM
%A Aubry P
%A Cour F
%A Pellerin O
%A Pineau J
%A Prognon P
%A Borget I
%A Bonan B
%A Martelli N
%J J Clin Epidemiol
%V 91
%N 0
%D Nov 2017
%M 28728922
%F 7.407
%R 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.07.005
%X <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>The aim of this study was to determine relevant items for reporting clinical trials on implantable medical devices (IMDs) and to identify reporting guidelines which include these items.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A panel of experts identified the most relevant items for evaluating IMDs from an initial list based on reference papers. We then conducted a systematic review of articles indexed in MEDLINE. We retrieved reporting guidelines from the EQUATOR network's library for health research reporting. Finally, we screened these reporting guidelines to find those using our set of reporting items.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Seven relevant reporting items were selected that related to four topics: randomization, learning curve, surgical setting, and device information. A total of 348 reporting guidelines were identified, among which 26 met our inclusion criteria. However, none of the 26 reporting guidelines presented all seven items together. The most frequently reported item was timing of randomization (65%). On the contrary, device information and learning curve effects were poorly specified.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>To our knowledge, this study is the first to identify specific items related to IMDs in reporting guidelines for clinical trials. We have shown that no existing reporting guideline is totally suitable for these devices.