menu
{ "item_title" : "Medical Devices", "item_author" : [" U. S. Government Accountability Office ( "], "item_description" : "In response to a congressional request, GAO examined the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA): (1) implementation of the premarket notification provision of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976; and (2) day-to-day operations in making its determinations of substantial equivalence. GAO found that: (1) although FDA guidance for determining substantial equivalence was generally adequate and consistent with the less restrictive reading of the act, its description of performance assessment contained some ambiguities; (2) differences among the reviewing divisions within the Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) concerning manufacturer information suggested a lack of clear office-wide policy and coordination; (3) documentation of premarket notifications was inadequate to evaluate ODE compliance with formal review policy; (4) because of implementation problems, certain classes of medical devices did not meet requirements appropriate to their classification and FDA relied on premarket notifications to control market access to them; and (5) FDA reliance on products marketed prior to 1976 to determine substantial equivalence could cause problems.", "item_img_path" : "https://covers2.booksamillion.com/covers/bam/1/28/901/055/1289010552_b.jpg", "price_data" : { "retail_price" : "19.75", "online_price" : "19.75", "our_price" : "19.75", "club_price" : "19.75", "savings_pct" : "0", "savings_amt" : "0.00", "club_savings_pct" : "0", "club_savings_amt" : "0.00", "discount_pct" : "10", "store_price" : "" } }
Medical Devices|U. S. Government Accountability Office (

Medical Devices : FDA's 510(k) Operations Could Be Improved: PEMD-88-14

local_shippingShip to Me
In Stock.
FREE Shipping for Club Members help

Overview

In response to a congressional request, GAO examined the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA): (1) implementation of the premarket notification provision of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976; and (2) day-to-day operations in making its determinations of substantial equivalence.

GAO found that: (1) although FDA guidance for determining substantial equivalence was generally adequate and consistent with the less restrictive reading of the act, its description of performance assessment contained some ambiguities; (2) differences among the reviewing divisions within the Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) concerning manufacturer information suggested a lack of clear office-wide policy and coordination; (3) documentation of premarket notifications was inadequate to evaluate ODE compliance with formal review policy; (4) because of implementation problems, certain classes of medical devices did not meet requirements appropriate to their classification and FDA relied on premarket notifications to control market access to them; and (5) FDA reliance on products marketed prior to 1976 to determine substantial equivalence could cause problems.

This item is Non-Returnable

Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781289010553
  • ISBN-10: 1289010552
  • Publisher: Bibliogov
  • Publish Date: June 2013
  • Dimensions: 9.69 x 7.44 x 0.24 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 0.49 pounds
  • Page Count: 116

Related Categories

You May Also Like...

    1

BAM Customer Reviews