Following the publication of the original article [1], we were notified that the name of the 10 ^th author was incorrectly tagged in the article’s XML. <GivenName>Perla</GivenName> <GivenName>J.</GivenName> <GivenName>Marang-van</GivenName> <Particle>de</Particle> <FamilyName>Mheen</FamilyName> <GivenName>Perla</GivenName> <GivenName>J.</GivenName> <FamilyName>Marang-van de Mheen</FamilyName> The original article has now been corrected.

Before a high-risk medical device is approved for implantation into patients, there should be evidence not only of its performance and safety with a favourable benefit-risk ratio, but also of its clinical efficacy. Regulatory guidance on study methodologies is lacking, however, so the European Commission funded the CORE–MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) to advise regulators on appropriate designs for clinical trials of high-risk devices. The CORE–MD consortium recommends that evaluation should be planned in four stages. Randomised controlled trials should be performed more often, against active comparators reflecting the best available treatment, or using sham interventions with ethical safeguards. Large trials can be managed efficiently using an electronic database or registry. Non-randomised clinical studies can apply objective performance criteria or other validated patient-relevant outcome measures, with adjustments to minimise bias. Full transparency of results from clinical investigations is essential. Proportionate regulation of breakthrough or orphan devices for independently-defined serious unmet needs may involve approval with less evidence, but on condition of subsequent confirmatory studies. These CORE–MD consensus proposals have been submitted to European Union medical device regulators, to be considered as a basis for more transparent and predictable requirements for clinical evidence. Funding: The CORE–MD project was funded as a Coordination and Support action from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, under grant agreement 965246.

Objectives Medical device registries in Europe report limited information about their structure and methodological characteristics. This hinders their utility for evaluation of medical device safety and performance under the Medical Device Regulation. This study aimed to define a minimum checklist of items necessary for regulators to assess the quality of evidence produced using registry data for the evaluation of medical device safety and performance. Design A three-round Delphi panel. Setting A task within the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices project. Participants 101 experts in the medical device community (healthcare professionals, methodologists, registry experts, regulators, and assessors from notified bodies) were invited. Interventions Based on a literature review and expert advice, 27 items relating to the quality of registry data and the analysis of medical device safety and performance were selected. In round 1, participants selected which items were required for a minimum checklist. They could also propose new items. Items selected by ≥70% of participants indicated consensus. Remaining items were discussed in round 2, resulting in a final checklist that was ranked by participants for importance (round 3). Main outcome measures Consensus of items to be included in the minimum checklist. Results 51 experts participated in round 1, achieving consensus on 18 (67%) items and suggesting 12 items. After discussion in round 2, 5 additional items were selected, resulting in a final set of 15 data quality items and 8 data analysis items. The most important items were ‘completeness of procedures’ (data quality) and ‘definition of outcome analyzed’” (quality of analysis). Conclusions Reporting all items from the minimum checklist will facilitate judgment of the utility of registry data to evaluate medical devices during post-market surveillance.

Background and purpose — Safety notices for medical devices such as total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implants may indicate problems in their design or performance that require corrective action to prevent patient harm. Safety notices are often published on national Ministries of Health or regulatory agencies websites. It is unknown whether problems triggering safety notices identify the same implants as those identified by registries as “outlier.” We aimed to assess the extent to which safety notices and outlier identification in registries signal the same or different TKA implants. Methods — The CORE-MD tool, an automated web scraper tool, was used to collect safety notices related to TKA implants on 13 national Ministries of Health websites and regulatory agencies. Safety notices were defined accord-ing to the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) as “a com-munication sent by a manufacturer to users or customers in relation to a field safety corrective action.” Identified TKA outliers, defined as having a significantly higher revision risk than other comparable TKA implants, were extracted from registry reports. Results — 787 safety notices for 38 TKA implants and 35 TKA outliers were identified, together identifying 47 unique TKA implants. 26 (55%) TKA implants had safety notices and were also outliers, 12 (26%) TKA implants had only safety notices, and 9 (19%) were outliers only. TKA implants with safety notices only had similar types of problems to TKA outliers with safety notices, with “Manufac-turing/Packaging/Shipping” problems being most frequent (44%). Cumulative revision risks (1/5/10 years) were lower for TKA implants with safety notices only than for TKA out-liers with safety notices. Conclusion — 55% of the TKA with a safety notice were identified as outliers in the registry, whereas around 25% of TKA outliers are not the subject of publicly released safety notices, with safety notices pointing to TKA implants not identified by registries as potentially having a higher risk of failure. This suggests that safety notices and registry outlier data measure different aspects of safety and performance.