ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Meeting increased regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices marketed in Europe in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (EU 2017/745) is

challenging, particularly for high-risk devices used in children. METHODS Within the CORE-MD project, we performed a scoping review on evidence from clinical trials investigating high-risk

paediatric medical devices used in paediatric cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery, in patients aged 0–21 years. We searched Medline and Embase from 1st January 2017 to 9th

November 2022. RESULTS From 1692 records screened, 99 trials were included. Most were multicentre studies performed in North America and Europe that mainly had evaluated medical devices from

frequently assessed outcomes were efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety. CONCLUSION Within the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were of

various designs, often lacked a concurrent control group, and recruited few infants and young children. IMPACT * In the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in

children were mainly small, with variable study designs (often without concurrent control), and they mostly enrolled adolescents. * We provide a systematic summary of methodologies applied

in clinical trials of medical devices in the paediatric population, reflecting obstacles in this research area that make it challenging to conduct adequately powered randomized controlled

trials. * In view of changing European regulations and related concerns about shortages of high-risk medical devices for children, our findings may assist competent authorities in setting

realistic requirements for the evidence level to support device conformity certification. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS PEDIATRIC INVASIVE DEVICE UTILITY AND HARM: A MULTI-SITE

POINT PREVALENCE SURVEY Article Open access 11 January 2024 ASSESSMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR BARIATRIC AND METABOLIC SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND EVALUATION USING APPRAISAL OF GUIDELINES FOR

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION II (AGREE II) Article 18 June 2024 PREVALENCE OF POTENTIALLY INAPPROPRIATE PRESCRIBING IN OLDER ADULTS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND

SYNTHESIS WITHOUT META-ANALYSIS Article Open access 06 October 2022 INTRODUCTION Medical devices play a key role in the diagnosis and treatment of many diseases in children. The spectrum

ranges from low-risk devices like dressing materials and wheelchairs to those of high-risk like catheters, ventilators, implants or pacemakers. While overall about 500,000 devices are

available on the EU market,1,2 the number of those approved for the paediatric age group is not specified as there is no central database in Europe.3 Despite the advances in medical device

technology, globally the market of medical devices is clearly dominated by devices for adults, while products specifically approved for paediatric use are in substantially lower number and

often unavailable.4 Consequently, off-label use of adult versions of medical devices is often best practice, despite little to no evidence about suitability and safety of their use in

children.5,6 In Europe, the regulation for approval of medical devices changed to improve the safety for patients by enhancing the regulatory requirements for evidence-based clinical

evaluation of medical devices. Products marketed in the EU that were approved under the prior directives, as well as newly developed devices, will need to comply with the new Medical Device

Regulation (MDR; EU 2017/745; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/745/oj) by 26 May 2024, and fully so after the transition period which has been extended to December 2027 for high-risk

medical devices.7,8 Meeting these new regulatory requirements can be challenging for manufacturers, especially with regard to clinical investigation of devices intended for patients in the

paediatric age group. For many clinical conditions and diseases for which high-risk medical devices are intended, the numbers of patients are limited, events are rare, and the population

under study is likely to be heterogeneous ranging from very small preterm infants to adolescents.9 In addition, both ethical considerations and parental concerns can make it complicated to

recruit and enrol infants, children and adolescents, who constitute a vulnerable population, to trials.10 An additional barrier faced by manufacturers is high financial regulatory costs in

Europe,3,11 with a low likelihood for achieving a return on investment due to the relatively small market for high-risk medical devices in the paediatric age group. Together, these factors

may result in market withdrawal of innovative medical devices for children, and lack of investment in further development and market introduction of new paediatric medical devices.3 While

achieving and documenting the highest possible level of safety and efficacy for medical devices used in children is a laudable goal, at the same time providing access to innovative medical

devices for the youngest patients and secure access to related state-of-the-art and potentially life-saving interventions remain equally important. The project “Coordinating Research and

Evidence for Medical Devices” (CORE–MD; https://www.core-md.eu/) is an EU Horizon 2020 project that reviews methodologies for the clinical investigation of high-risk medical devices,

including those applied specifically in children, in order to recommend an appropriate balance between efficacy, safety and innovation.11 As part of this project, we systematically summarize

published clinical evidence on high-risk medical devices, namely available evidence from clinical trials in children, in order to identify and describe methodologies applied in this

research area. Given our broad review questions and thus the exploratory character of the review, we conducted a scoping review. This approach is recommended when the purpose of the review

is to _“scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct”_,12 and it is typically used to provide an overview and map of the available evidence in a given

field and to identify knowledge gaps.12 METHODS This scoping review was performed in accordance with the previously developed protocol, which was registered and published at the Open Science

Framework (https://osf.io/uzekt).13 We conducted this review in accordance with the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) Reviewers’ Manual14 and report the results following

the PRISMA-ScR guidelines15 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA PARTICIPANTS The study

population of interest was children and young people from different age-groups covering the range from 0 to <21 years, including preterms, neonates, infants, toddlers, children and

adolescents, with any medical condition as an indication for the use of a specific medical device. Mixed population studies that involved both children and adults were also eligible for

inclusion. CONCEPT Medical devices, including paediatric medical devices, are categorized in different risk classes according to the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR), as well as to the

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. However, the classification rules are different and some products may fall into different risk categories. The focus of this review was

on high-risk medical devices. According to the MDR, high-risk medical devices are “class III implantable devices and class IIb active devices that are intended to administer or remove

medicinal products from the body”.16 According to the FDA, high-risk medical devices are class III devices that “usually sustain or support life, are implanted, or present potential

unreasonable risk of illness or injury”.17 Examples of high-risk medical devices are prosthetic heart valves, closed-loop insulin delivery systems, defibrillators or deep-brain stimulation.

In our review, studies on class IIb and III medical devices according to the MDR, and on class III medical devices according to the FDA were considered for inclusion. For feasibility

reasons, we focused on selected medical devices, based on a pre-defined list of high-risk paediatric medical devices from cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery. This selection is

in line with the similar reviews done by the CORE-MD consortium for adult populations18,19,20 and it covers clinical specialties (cardiology; clinical chemistry that includes insulin pumps

and glucose sensors) that are frequently represented among approved devices in children.21 In Europe, medical devices are not listed centrally. The European Database on Medical Devices

(EUDAMED) will be mandatory in the future to track all devices placed on the EU market under the MDR, but is still under development. Therefore, we developed the list of devices of interest

(Supplementary Table 1) using sources based on FDA records. We used the device list provided by ref. 21, who identified all high-risk medical devices with paediatric age indications listed

in the FDA Premarket Approval (PMA) database from inception to February 2020 in their study. Additionally, we supplemented this list by searching the following FDA resources: * Premarket

Approvals (PMA) database: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pmasimplesearch.cfm (from March 2020 to June 2022) * Annual Reports to Congress on Premarket Approval of

Paediatric Uses of Devices, covering approved PMA and Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) applications (available from 2008 to 2017) * Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) database (from 2018

to June 2022) In this scoping review, we investigated designs and methods applied in clinical trials with the use of a high-risk medical device in children as an intervention. According to

the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) a clinical trial is “_any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or

without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome_”.22 While there are many other definitions of a

“clinical trial”,23,24 in any case a clinical trial is an interventional study and thus differentiates itself from studies of observational design. Due to the nature of this review, the list

of outcomes of interest remained open but included the following: * Country; single- or multicentre, national or international study * Study design (e.g., controlled clinical trial,

crossover trial, single-arm interventional study) * Sample size and proportion of paediatric participants * Target population characteristics (age, sex) * Type of device and indication for

its use * Assessed study outcomes (e.g., safety, performance, efficacy, patient reported outcomes) * Approving body * Funding (e.g., industry sponsorship) CONTEXT We included any clinical

trials’ reports on high-risk medical devices in children, including those on pre- and post-market clinical investigation. No restrictions were applied in terms of study setting or device

indications for use, with areas of application including cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery. TYPES OF SOURCES Clinical trials of any design (e.g., randomized and

non-randomized controlled clinical trials, interventional studies without concurrent controls, before–after studies, crossover trials) and qualitative studies focused on the intervention

being trialled, were eligible for inclusion. Evidence from systematic reviews and observational studies (prospective, retrospective) was not of interest. Conference abstracts, commentaries,

editorials, letters and book chapters were excluded. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the following electronic medical databases: MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE (Ovid). Database-specific search

strategies were developed based on the predefined list of high-risk medical devices, with the use of trade and generic devices’ names and clinical trials search filters. The timeframe for

our search was from 1st January 2017 to 9th November 2022. We restricted our search to sources and papers published in English language only. The detailed search strategy is provided in

Supplementary Table 2. LITERATURE SELECTION Records identified after applying our search strategy were uploaded into reference manager EndNote (Version X8 and 20) and duplicates were

removed. Titles and abstracts were screened against the inclusion criteria by one reviewer (PD, KG, MK).25 This process was pilot-tested on a selected subgroup of references with the

involvement of all reviewers. Full text articles were obtained for abstracts that needed to be included or that appeared unclear. They were independently evaluated by two reviewers (PD, KG,

MK). Any disagreements or uncertainties regarding inclusion were resolved through discussion and record assessment by the third independent reviewer (BPG). DATA EXTRACTION Data extraction

was performed manually by two independent reviewers for each included article using a pre-specified data extraction form, and it was later cross-checked for any discrepancies. We extracted

information on authors, year of publication, study setting and design, sample size, participant demographic characteristics (age, sex), study aim, medical device characteristics (trade and

generic name, medical condition the device is intended for), assessed study outcomes, funding, if the device is on the market and if the study serves for clinical evaluation purposes. DATA

ANALYSIS We used basic descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies, proportions) to summarize the study designs, sample sizes and proportion of paediatric participants within the study sample,

the study setting and population characteristics (with main emphasis on the age groups), the type of devices and their distribution across studied clinical specialties, assessed study

outcomes and sources of funding. RESULTS Of 1692 records identified, 104

reports26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129

on 99 trials were included in this scoping review (Fig. 1). We considered multiple reports as one trial if the population enrolled was fully the same. Excluded studies together with reasons

for exclusion are presented in Supplementary Table 3 and details on characteristics of each included study in Supplementary Tables 4 and 5. STUDY SETTING 90% of the included studies were

conducted in countries of very high Human Development Index (HDI), mainly in North America (38%) and Europe (35%). 65% of the studies were multicentre. Of those, 73% trials were conducted

within one country and 27% enrolled participants from different countries. Distributions of the trials across continents and by centre are shown in Fig. 2a, b. EVALUATED MEDICAL DEVICES Most

of the included trials (_n_ = 87, 88%) evaluated the use of medical devices from the clinical specialty of diabetology, followed by cardiology (_n_ = 12, 12%). These included closed loop

systems, glucose monitoring devices and insulin pumps. We identified no trials that had evaluated the use of medical devices from the clinical specialities of paediatric orthopaedics or

paediatric surgery. The list of evaluated medical devices (generic names) by clinical specialty is provided in Table 1. Eight trials did not report the trade name of the evaluated device or

the exact model that had been evaluated. 53% of the trials studied a medical device already available on the market. The other trials studied a medical device that was not on the market, or

else information about the status of the device was unclear. POPULATION 60 trials (61%) enrolled only paediatric populations (participants <21 years of age). The remaining 39 trials (39%)

evaluated the device of interest in a mixed population, consisting of both children and adult study participants. Within the studies with mixed populations, 64% (_n_ = 25) reported the

exact number of children with a proportion from 10% to 89% (median 52%, interquartile range, IQR 45–65%). We categorized the age groups of interest as followed: neonates from birth through

the first 28 days, infants from 29 days to 2 years of age, children from 2 years to 12 years of age, and adolescents from 12 to 21 years, according to ref. 21 and the FDA classification.130

Most studies included children and adolescents (49%), followed by adolescents (33%) or children only (14%) (Fig. 3). Of the remaining reports, two studies (2%) enrolled participants of a

broader age range including infants, children and adolescents, one report (1%) included infants and children, and one report (1%) enrolled neonates. Overall, 51 studies (51.5%) included

multiple paediatric age groups, and 48 studies only a single paediatric age group (48.5%). Among the studies with mixed populations (_n_ = 39), 36 studies (92%) included adolescents over 18

years of age. STUDY DESIGNS The largest single category of included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (38%), followed by baseline-controlled trials (before-after studies)

(21%) and trials of crossover design (20%) (Table 2). Of all controlled clinical trials and crossover trials, 90% were randomized. All crossover trials and most of the RCTs were open-label

studies, with blinding (single or double) applied in only 13% of RCTs. SAMPLE SIZE The sample size varied across the studies and ranged from 10 to 1000 participants. Most of the included

trials were small, with the median number of participants 59 (IQR 30–124.5) and with a sample size <100 participants in 64% of the studies. Figure 4a, b shows the distribution of the

sample sizes of the included studies (continuously, per category: 0–29, 30–99, 100–199, ≥200). In the subgroup of studies (_n_ = 60) that enrolled only a paediatric population (participants

<21 years of age), the median sample size was 48 (IQR 24–102). The median number of study participants was similar in the paediatric studies from the field of diabetology only (57 trials,

median sample size of 50, IQR 24–105), but was significantly lower in studies from the field of cardiology (3 trials, median sample size 17, IQR 14.5–30.5). ASSESSED OUTCOMES Most studies

assessed the efficacy or effectiveness of the device used (79%), and the safety of the intervention (73%). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed in 24% of the trials. 23% of trials focused

on the performance of the device. Usability was examined only in studies from the field of diabetology. Table 3 shows all different types of outcomes assessed in the included studies.

FUNDING 32 trials (32%) were industry funded, and 42 trials (43%) were partly industry funded meaning that devices were provided by industry for free or at a discounted price. Of all studies

in which industry was involved in the funding, 10 trials specifically mentioned that they were investigator-initiated. 13 trials (13%) were non-industry funded. No funding had been

received, or funding was not reported in 12 trials (12%). DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This study provides an overview on designs and methodologies applied in a systematically selected

sample of recent clinical trials evaluating high-risk medical devices in infants, children and adolescents. Our sample was dominated by devices from the clinical specialty of diabetology,

while we identified only few studies of cardiology devices and none of orthopaedic or surgery devices in children. Of all identified clinical trials, 38% were RCTs. Remaining trials were of

various study designs, often without a concurrent control group, and included crossover trials and before-after studies. Other study characteristics such as small sample sizes and

multicentricity were common. Identified studies were mostly conducted in adolescents and older children, with a very low number in neonates, infants and young children. We based our search

on devices with an approved indication from the FDA for use in paediatric patients, although mostly, they had not been approved for the youngest children.21 This may to some extent explain

the fact that we found nearly no studies performed in infants and young children. Overall, both low number of devices approved for this young age group and low number of clinical trials

identified by us that targeted this population may primarily indicate greater barriers in obtaining clinical evidence in this group. Both ethical aspects and parental concerns can hamper

participant recruitment and enrolment and make it more difficult to perform clinical studies in children, particularly in younger age groups, also because of limited number of patients

available and rarity of events.9,10 These barriers likely influence not only the number of studies, but also their design. Only 38% of the clinical trials within our sample were RCTs, which

is similar to the recent report on clinical evidence for FDA first-time approved high-risk therapeutic devices, showing that trials with randomization accounted for 49% of pivotal studies

for paediatric devices.131 Unsurprisingly, nearly all of the identified RCTs had been conducted among patients with type 1 diabetes, one of the most common chronic diseases in children.132

It is also not unexpected that all crossover trials in our sample were from the field of diabetology, as this study design provides a high level of evidence in patients with chronic

diseases, such as diabetes, with a temporary/reversible effect induced by a device (e.g., glycemic control), and at the same time allows for significant sample size reduction because study

participants serve as their own controls.133 In contrast, within our small sample of studies from the specialty of cardiology, the leading study designs were uncontrolled studies and

before-after studies. Considering the type of indications for high-risk medical device use in paediatric cardiology, such as rare congenital heart defects often requiring urgent and

life-saving interventions at a very young age, these findings appear understandable. Other trial design features, such as mixed population under study, multicentricity or small sample sizes

that characterized trials within our sample are also likely to be derived from the above-mentioned barriers in study participant recruitment. We identified a substantially higher proportion

of studies conducted in type 1 diabetes patients, than in the other specialities that we included, which again is likely to be at least partly explained by the relatively high prevalence of

this disease. Moreover, evaluated devices from this clinical field were basically identical to those used in adults. For manufacturers, it seems to be financially more attractive to conduct

studies on devices with large sales volumes, and with long-term use of the devices, which can provide a significant profit margin. We speculate that this is an additional reason why most

included studies were performed on commercially attractive devices such as diabetic devices. Additionally, diabetic devices tend to be subject to health technology assessments for

reimbursement purposes and, therefore, need more studies of high quality confirming their effectiveness to meet the reimbursement standards set by national authorities. Interestingly, we did

not identify any studies of orthopaedic devices in children. However, orthopaedics, with a low number of devices indicated for children within this subspecialty, is not one of the leading

fields for devices in paediatrics compared to cardiology, clinical chemistry, ophthalmology or otolaryngology21 and in contrast to devices in adults. As anticipated, most often reported

study outcomes in our sample were efficacy or effectiveness of the device used, and safety of the intervention. Nearly one quarter of studies assessed patient-reported outcomes, which

provide valuable information about the impact of a treatment from the perspective of a patient that often cannot be captured by clinical measures.134 Our results indicate that there is room

left for improvement and inclusion of patient-reported outcomes. As the MDR also mentions _“meaningful, measurable patient-relevant clinical outcome(s),_6 under clinical benefit to be

assessed, this can increase the inclusion of these types of outcomes in future studies. Finally, our findings show a substantial contribution of commercial manufacturers in the identified

clinical trials, which comes with clear benefits but also with concerns about potential bias introduced in company-sponsored studies. A physician-initiated industry-sponsored study model is

among the solutions to consider in order to reduce bias associated with medical device companies involvement into device research.135 Further, ensuring good clinical practice by applying the

ISO 14155 standard and requiring sponsors to publish all clinical investigation reports as newly required by the MDR, are means of defense against possible bias. Given the concerns about

limited availability of some high-risk paediatric medical devices in Europe,3,136 European clinical experts have recently developed recommendations on clinical investigation and evaluation

of high-risk medical devices for children.137 Findings obtained from this review assisted in the development of these recommendations. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS To our knowledge this is the

first systematic summary of the methodologies applied in clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children, not limited to studies identified through FDA sources and exclusively

supporting FDA approval of medical devices, but exploring published evidence from various settings and regulatory systems. In addition, a wide range of devices from different clinical

specialties was covered in our search. We applied rigorous methods for the review conduct, as proposed in JBI Reviewers’ Manual, with respect to different review stages, including study

identification and selection process, data extraction and synthesis. Although due to feasibility reasons we did not apply free text words and standardized keywords to all concepts covered in

our search strategy, both generic and trades names of devices of interest were covered in attempt to identify relevant trials. While we applied validated search filters for clinical trials,

we acknowledge that their sensitivity to identify non-randomized trials may be lower as compared to RCTs.138 Therefore, we cannot exclude that some potentially eligible studies might have

been omitted by us. Finally, our review was limited to studies published in English in the last 5 years, and did not include unpublished or grey literature or potentially existing

confidential data used for device evaluation purposes. However, it should be noted that the aim of this scoping review was to obtain a representative sample of recent clinical trials on

high-risk medical devices in children, rather than to identify the totality of evidence. Our selection of devices of interest was based on the U.S. FDA sources as there is no central

European database of (paediatric) medical devices,3 which can be considered as a limitation of this review. Other challenges in the review conduct concerned determination of device class,

complicated by the different device classification systems (e.g., FDA vs. EU criteria for high-risk medical devices), changes in classification over time, or no central source of information

regarding device class in Europe. CONCLUSION While RCTs are considered the gold standard for the effectiveness and safety assessment of a medical intervention, they may not always be

feasible in clinical investigation of medical devices in children. Clinical trials of other designs, as those identified in our review, offer a compromise between the highest level of

evidence and the lack of evidence. Paediatric devices require specific considerations and have unique barriers to their development. The findings from this scoping review may assist

regulators and competent authorities in setting achievable and context-tailored requirements for clinical evidence supporting device conformity. Urgent actions are needed in Europe to ensure

both the safety and the continued availability of devices that are essential to treat sick children. Capitalizing on respective evidence-based summaries supports regulatory decision-making

processes. DATA AVAILABILITY In this study, we used only publically available, published data. REFERENCES * Melvin, T. & Torre, M. New medical device regulations: the regulator’s view.

_EFORT Open Rev._ 4, 351–356 (2019). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * European Commission. _Medical Devices—Sector—Overview_,

https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/overview_en (2023). * Melvin, T., Kenny, D., Gewillig, M. & Fraser, A. G. Orphan medical devices and pediatric cardiology—what

interventionists in Europe need to know, and what needs to be done. _Pediatr. Cardiol._ 44, 271–279 (2023). Article  Google Scholar  * Hwang, T. J., Kesselheim, A. S. & Bourgeois, F. T.

Postmarketing trials and pediatric device approvals. _Pediatrics_ 133, e1197–e1202 (2014). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement,

Section on cardiology and cardiac surgery & section on orthopedics. Off-Label Use of Medical Devices in Children. _Pediatrics_ 139, e20163439 (2017). * Espinoza, J. C. The scarcity of

approved pediatric high-risk medical devices. _JAMA Netw. Open_ 4, e2112760 (2021). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * European Commission. Regulation (Eu) 2017/745 of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on Medical Devices, Amending Directive 2001/83/Ec, Regulation (Ec) No 178/2002 and Regulation (Ec) No 1223/2009 and Repealing Council Directives

90/385/Eec and 93/42/Eec (Text with EEA Relevance). _Off. J. Eur. Union_ 60, 1–175 (2017). * European Commission. Regulation (Eu) 2023/607 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

15 March 2023 Amending Regulations (Eu) 2017/745 and (Eu) 2017/746 as Regards the Transitional Provisions for Certain Medical Devices and in Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices (Text with EEA

Relevance). _Off. J. Eur. Union_ 66, 24–29 (2023). * Fleurence, R. L., Forrest, C. B. & Shuren, J. Strengthening the evidence base for pediatric medical devices using real-world data.

_J. Pediatr._ 214, 209–211 (2019). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Bates, K. E. et al. Pediatric cardiovascular safety: challenges in drug and device development and clinical application.

_Am. Heart J._ 164, 481–492 (2012). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Fraser, A. G. et al. Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and

objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices). _Eur. Heart J. Qual. Care Clin. Outcomes_ 8, 249–258 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Munn, Z.

et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. _BMC Med. Res. Methodol._ 18, 143 (2018). Article  PubMed 

PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Guerlich, K., Patro-Golab, B., Kammermeier, M., Dworakowski, P. & Koletzko, B. _Clinical Evidence for High-Risk Medical Devices in Children: A Protocol

for a Scoping Review_, https://osf.io/uzekt (2023). * Peters, M. D. J. et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. _JBI Evid. Implement_ 19, 3–10 (2021).

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Tricco, A. C. et al. Prisma extension for scoping reviews (Prisma-Scr): checklist and explanation. _Ann. Intern Med._ 169, 467–473 (2018). Article  PubMed

  Google Scholar  * European Medicines Agency (EMA). _Medical Devices_, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/medical-devices (2023). * US Food and Drug Administration

(FDA). _Learn If a Medical Device Has Been Cleared by FDA for Marketing_, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/consumers-medical-devices/learn-if-medical-device-has-been-cleared-fda-marketing

(2023). * Siontis, G. et al. _Clinical Evidence for High-Risk Medical Devices in Cardiology: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Epidemiological Investigation_,

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022308593 (2022). * Bano, A. et al. _Clinical Evidence of High-Risk Medical Devices for Diabetes Management: A Systematic

Review and Meta-Analysis_, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022366871 (2022). * Smith, J., Combescure, C., Barea, C. & Lübbeke, A. _Clinical Investigations

to Evaluate High-Risk Orthopaedic Devices: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis_, https://osf.io/6gmyx (2021). * Lee, S. J. et al. Quantification of US Food And Drug Administration premarket

approval statements for high-risk medical devices with pediatric age indications. _JAMA Netw. Open_ 4, e2112562 (2021). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * International

Committee of Medical Journal Editors. _Clinical Trials_, https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html (2023). * World Health

Organization (WHO). _Glossary: Clinical Trial Definition_, https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform/about/glossary (2023). * National Institutes of Health (NIH). _Nih’s

Definition of a Clinical Trial_, https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/definition.htm (2023). * Lefebvre, C. et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In _Cochrane

Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 63 (Updated February 2022)_ (Higgins, J. P. T. et al. eds.) (Cochrane, 2022). * Abraham, M. B. et al. Reduction in hypoglycemia with

the predictive low-glucose management system: a long-term randomized controlled trial in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Care_ 41, 303–310 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  * Abraham, M. B. et al. Characteristics of automated insulin suspension and glucose responses with the predictive low-glucose management system. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 21, 28–34 (2019).

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Abraham, M. B. et al. Effect of a hybrid closed-loop system on glycemic and psychosocial outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a

randomized clinical trial. _JAMA Pediatr._ 175, 1227–1235 (2021). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Adams, R. N. et al. Psychosocial and human factors during a trial of a hybrid closed

loop system for type 1 diabetes management. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 20, 648–653 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Al Hayek, A. A., Robert, A. A. & Al Dawish, M. A. Evaluation

of freestyle libre flash glucose monitoring system on glycemic control, health-related quality of life, and fear of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes. _Clin. Med. Insights

Endocrinol. Diabetes_ 10, 1–6 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Al Hayek, A. A. & Al Dawish, M. A. The potential impact of the freestyle libre flash glucose monitoring system on mental

well-being and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 1 diabetes: a prospective study. _Diabetes Ther._ 10, 1239–1248 (2019). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Al

Hayek, A. A., Robert, A. A. & Al Dawish, M. A. Differences of FreeStyle Libre flash glucose monitoring system and finger pricks on clinical characteristics and glucose monitoring

satisfactions in type 1 diabetes using insulin pump. _Clin. Med. Insights: Endocrinol. Diabetes_ 12, 1179551419861102 (2019). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Al-Musa, H. M. & Aftab, R.

Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring for managing type-1 diabetic patients and barrier to its use: a quasi interventional trial. _J. Krishna Inst. Med. Sci. Univ._ 7, 68–79 (2018).

CAS  Google Scholar  * Anderson, S. M. et al. The international diabetes closed-loop study: testing artificial pancreas component interoperability. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 21, 73–80

(2019). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Aronson, R., Abitbol, A. & Tweden, K. S. First assessment of the performance of an implantable continuous glucose

monitoring system through 180 days in a primarily adolescent population with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Obes. Metab._ 21, 1689–1694 (2019). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google

Scholar  * Barnard, K. D. et al. Closing the loop in adults, children and adolescents with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes under free living conditions: a psychosocial substudy. _J.

Diabetes Sci. Technol._ 11, 1080–1088 (2017). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Battelino, T., Nimri, R., Dovc, K., Phillip, M. & Bratina, N. Prevention of hypoglycemia

with predictive low glucose insulin suspension in children with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. _Diabetes Care_ 40, 764–770 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Beardsall, K., Thomson, L., Elleri, D., Dunger, D. B. & Hovorka, R. Feasibility of automated insulin delivery guided by continuous glucose monitoring in preterm infants. _Arch. Dis.

Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed._ 105, F279–F284 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Beato-Vibora, P. I. et al. Rapid improvement in time in range after the implementation of an advanced hybrid

closed-loop system in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 23, 609–615 (2021). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Bergenstal, R. M. et al. A comparison

of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. _Lancet_ 397, 208–219 (2021). Article  CAS 

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Biester, T. et al. “Let the algorithm do the work”: reduction of hypoglycemia using sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive insulin suspension

(SmartGuard) in pediatric type 1 diabetes patients. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 19, 173–182 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Biester, T. et al. Dream5: an

open-label, randomized, cross-over study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of day and night closed-loop control by comparing the MD-Logic automated insulin delivery system to sensor

augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes at home. _Diabetes Obes. Metab._ 21, 822–828 (2019). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Bisio, A. et al. Sleep and

diabetes-specific psycho-behavioral outcomes of a new automated insulin delivery system in young children with type 1 diabetes and their parents. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 22, 495–502 (2021).

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Blair, J. C. et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injection regimens in children and young people at diagnosis of

type 1 diabetes: pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. _BMJ (Online)_ 365, 1226 (2019). (no pagination). Google Scholar  * Boucher, S. E. et al. Effect of 6 months

of flash glucose monitoring in youth with type 1 diabetes and high-risk glycemic control: a randomized controlled trial. _Diabetes Care_ 43, 2388–2395 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Breton, M. D. et al. A randomized trial of closed-loop control in children with type 1 diabetes. _N. Engl. J. Med._ 383, 836–845 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  * Brown, S. A. et al. Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. _N. Engl. J. Med._ 381, 1707–1717 (2019). Article  CAS  PubMed 

PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Brown, S. A. et al. Glycemic outcomes of use of CLC versus PLGS in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. _Diabetes Care_ 43, 1822–1828 (2020).

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Burckhardt, M. A. et al. The use of continuous glucose monitoring with remote monitoring improves psychosocial measures in parents of

children with type 1 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial. _Diabetes Care_ 41, 2641–2643 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Burckhardt, M. A. et al. Use of remote monitoring with

continuous glucose monitoring in young children with type 1 diabetes: the parents’ perspective. _Diabet. Med_ 36, 1453–1459 (2019). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Burnside, M. J. et al.

Open-source automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. _N. Engl. J. Med._ 387, 869–881 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Carlson, A. L. et al. Safety and glycemic outcomes

during the MiniMedTM advanced hybrid closed-loop system pivotal trial in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 24, 178–189 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed 

PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Cobry, E. C. et al. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in parents and children with type 1 diabetes using closed-loop control.

_Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 23, 401–409 (2021). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Collyns, O. J. et al. Improved glycemic outcomes with Medtronic MiniMed advanced hybrid

closed-loop delivery: results from a randomized crossover trial comparing automated insulin delivery with predictive low glucose suspend in people with type1 diabetes. _Diabetes Care_ 44,

969–975 (2021). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * De Bock, M. et al. Performance of Medtronic hybrid closed-loop iterations: results from a randomized trial in adolescents with type 1

diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 20, 693–697 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Deboer, M. D. et al. Performance of an artificial pancreas system for young children with type 1

diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 19, 293–298 (2017). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Deja, G. et al. The usefulness of the FlashStyle Libre system in glycemic control in children with

type 1 diabetes during summer camp. _Pediatr. Endocrinol. Diabetes Metab._ 24, 11–19 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Deshpande, S. et al. Feasibility and preliminary safety of

smartphone-based automated insulin delivery in adolescents and children with type 1 diabetes. _J. Diabetes Sci. Technol._ (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221116384. Online ahead of

print. * Ekhlaspour, L. et al. Closed loop control in adolescents and children during winter sports: use of the tandem control-IQ AP system. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 20, 759–768 (2019). PubMed 

PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Elbalshy, M. M. et al. The effect of do-it-yourself real-time continuous glucose monitoring on psychological and glycemic variables in children with type 1

diabetes: a randomized crossover trial. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 23, 480–488 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Elbarbary, N. S. & Ismail, E. A. R. Glycemic

control during Ramadan fasting in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes on MiniMed™ 780g advanced hybrid closed‑loop system: a randomized controlled trial. _Diabetes Res. Clin.

Pract._ 191, 110045 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Forlenza, G. P. et al. Predictive hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia minimization: in-home double-blind randomized controlled

evaluation in children and young adolescents. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 19, 420–428 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Forlenza, G. P. et al. Predictive low-glucose suspend reduces

hypoglycemia in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes in an at-home randomized crossover study: results of the prolog trial. _Diabetes Care_ 41, 2155–2161 (2018). Article 

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Forlenza, G. P. et al. Safety evaluation of the MiniMed 670g system in children 7-13 years of age with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 21, 11–19

(2019). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Forlenza, G. P. et al. Successful at-home use of the tandem control-IQ artificial pancreas system in young children during a

randomized controlled trial. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 21, 159–169 (2019). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Forlenza, G. P. et al. Glycemic outcomes of children 2-6 years

of age with type 1 diabetes during the pediatric MiniMed™ 670g system trial. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 23, 324–329 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Fox, L. A.,

Balkman, E., Englert, K., Hossain, J. & Mauras, N. Safety of using real-time sensor glucose values for treatment decisions in adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes mellitus:

a pilot study. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 18, 271–276 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Garcia-Tirado, J. et al. Advanced closed-loop control system improves postprandial glycemic

control compared with a hybrid closed-loop system following unannounced meal. _Diabetes Care_ 44, 2379–2387 (2021). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Gomez, A. M. et al. Efficacy and safety of

sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAPT) with predictive low-glucose management in patients diagnosed with type 1 diabetes mellitus previously treated with SAPT and low glucose suspend.

_Endocrinol. Diabetes Nutr._ 65, 451–457 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Gu, W. et al. Multicentre randomized controlled trial with sensor-augmented pump vs multiple daily injections in

hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes in China: time to reach target glucose. _Diabetes Metab._ 43, 359–363 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Guilmin-Crepon, S. et al. Is

there an optimal strategy for real-time continuous glucose monitoring in pediatrics? A 12-month French multi-center, prospective, controlled randomized trial (Start-In!). _Pediatr. Diabetes_

20, 304–313 (2019). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Heller, S. et al. A cluster randomised trial, cost-effectiveness analysis and psychosocial evaluation of insulin pump therapy

compared with multiple injections during flexible intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes: the repose trial. _Health Technol. Assess._ 21, 1–278 (2017). Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed

Central  Google Scholar  * Kariyawasam, D. et al. Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery versus sensor-augmented pump therapy in children aged 6-12 years: a randomised, controlled, cross-over,

non-inferiority trial. _Lancet Digit. Health_ 4, e158–e168 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Kovatchev, B. et al. Randomized controlled trial of mobile closed-loop control.

_Diabetes Care_ 43, 607–615 (2020). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Kovatchev, B. P. et al. Evening and overnight closed-loop control versus 24/7 continuous closed-loop

control for type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial. _Lancet Digit. Health_ 2, e64–e73 (2020). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Laffel, L. M. et al. Effect of

continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical. _JAMA_ 323, 2388–2396 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed

Central  Google Scholar  * Laffel, L. M., Bailey, T. S., Christiansen, M. P., Reid, J. L. & Beck, S. E. Accuracy of a seventh-generation continuous glucose monitoring system in children

and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. _J. Diabetes Sci. Technol._ 17, 962–967 (2022). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Lang, Q., Ye, B., Wang, N. & Li, G. Therapeutic

effect of different insulin injections on type 1 diabetes mellitus. _Biomed. Res. (India)_ 28, 9867–9870 (2017). CAS  Google Scholar  * Lawson, M. L. et al. Timing of CGM initiation in

pediatric diabetes: the CGM TIME Trial. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 22, 279–287 (2021). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Lukka, M., Tillmann, V. & Peet, A. Decreased need for correction

boluses with universal utilisation of dual-wave boluses in children with type 1 diabetes. _J. Clin. Med._ 11, 1689 (2022). (no pagination). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google

Scholar  * Lynch, J. et al. The insulin-only bionic pancreas pivotal trial extension study: a multi-center single-arm evaluation of the insulin-only configuration of the bionic pancreas in

adults and youth with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 24, 726–736 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Messaaoui, A., Tenoutasse, S., Hajselova, L.

& Crenier, L. Comparison between continuous versus flash glucose monitoring in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes: an 8-week prospective randomized trial.

_Diabetes Ther._ 13, 1671–1681 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Messer, L. H. et al. Positive impact of the bionic pancreas on diabetes control in youth 6-17

years old with type 1 diabetes: a multicenter randomized trial. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 24, 712–725 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Michalak, A., Pagacz,

K., Mlynarski, W., Szadkowska, A. & Fendler, W. Discrepancies between methods of continuous glucose monitoring in key metrics of glucose control in children with type 1 diabetes.

_Pediatr. Diabetes_ 20, 604–612 (2019). CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Mueller-Godeffroy, E. et al. Psychosocial benefits of insulin pump therapy in children with diabetes type 1 and their

families: the pumpkin multicenter randomized controlled trial. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 19, 1471–1480 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Nimri, R. et al. MD-Logic overnight type 1

diabetes control in home settings: a multicentre, multinational, single blind randomized trial. _Diabetes Obes. Metab._ 19, 553–561 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Palisaitis, E., El Fathi, A., von Oettingen, J. E., Haidar, A. & Legault, L. A meal detection algorithm for the artificial pancreas: a randomized controlled clinical trial in adolescents

with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Care_ 44, 604–606 (2021). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Petrovski, G. et al. 10-Day structured initiation protocol from multiple daily injection to

hybrid closed-loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. _Acta Diabetol._ 57, 681–687 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Petrovski, G. et al.

Glycemic outcomes of advanced hybrid closed loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, previously treated with multiple daily injections (MiniMed 780G System in T1D

individuals, previously treated with MDI). _BMC Endocr. Disord._ 22, 80 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Pinsker, J. E. et al. Clinical evaluation of a novel

CGM-informed bolus calculator with automatic glucose trend adjustment. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 24, 18–25 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Piona, C. et al.

Non-adjunctive flash glucose monitoring system use during summer-camp in children with type 1 diabetes: the free-summer study. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 19, 1285–1293 (2018). Article  PubMed 

Google Scholar  * Raviteja, K. V., Kumar, R., Dayal, D. & Sachdeva, N. Clinical efficacy of professional continuous glucose monitoring in improving glycemic control among children with

type 1 diabetes mellitus: an open-label randomized control trial. _Sci. Rep._ 9, 6120 (2019). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Renard, E. et al. Closed-loop

driven by control-to-range algorithm outperforms threshold-low-glucose-suspend insulin delivery on glucose control albeit not on nocturnal hypoglycaemia in prepubertal patients with type 1

diabetes in a supervised hotel setting. _Diabetes Obes. Metab._ 21, 183–187 (2019). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Renard, E. et al. Outcomes of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery

activated 24/7 versus evening and night in free-living prepubertal children with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, randomized clinical trial. _Diabetes Obes. Metab._ 24, 511–521 (2022).

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Renard, E., Riveline, J. P., Hanaire, H. & Guerci, B. Reduction of clinically important low glucose excursions with a long-term implantable

continuous glucose monitoring system in adults with type 1 diabetes prone to hypoglycaemia: the France Adoption Randomized Clinical Trial. _Diabetes Obes. Metab._ 24, 859–867 (2022). Article

  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Roberts, A. et al. Hybrid closed-loop therapy with a first-generation system increases confidence and independence in diabetes management in youth with type

1 diabetes. _Diabet. Med_ 39, e14907 (2022). (no pagination). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Rose, S. et al. Use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in young

people with high-risk type 1 diabetes—Extension phase outcomes following a 6-month randomized control trial. _Diabet. Med._ 39, e14756 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Russell, S. J. et al. Multicenter, randomized trial of a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes. _N. Engl. J. Med._ 387, 1161–1172 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Schierloh, U.

et al. Intermittent scanning glucose monitoring or predicted low suspend pump treatment: does it impact time in glucose target and treatment preference? The QUEST randomized crossover study.

_Front. Endocrinol._ 13, 870916 (2022). Article  Google Scholar  * Schoelwer, M. J. et al. Safety and efficacy of initializing the control-IQ artificial pancreas system based on total daily

insulin in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 22, 594–601 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Scott, E. S. et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin

infusion alters microRNA expression and glycaemic variability in children with type 1 diabetes. _Sci. Rep._ 11, 16656 (2021). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  *

Seget, S., Rusak, E., Polanska, J. & Jarosz-Chobot, P. Prospective open-label single-arm, single-center follow-up study of the application of the advanced hybrid closed loop system in

well-controlled children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 24, 824–831 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Strategies to Enhance New

CGM Use in Early Childhood (SENCE) Study Group. A randomized clinical trial assessing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use with standardized education with or without a family behavioral

intervention compared with fingerstick blood glucose monitoring in very young children with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes care_ 44, 464–472 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Sherr, J. L. et

al. Safety and performance of the Omnipod hybrid closed-loop system in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes over 5 days under free-living conditions. _Diabetes Technol.

Ther._ 22, 174–184 (2020). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Slover, R. H. et al. Accuracy of a fourth-generation continuous glucose monitoring system in children and

adolescents with type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 20, 576–584 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Spaic, T. et al. Predictive hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia

minimization: in-home evaluation of safety, feasibility, and efficacy in overnight glucose control in type 1 diabetes. _Diabetes Care_ 40, 359–366 (2017). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  * Tauschmann, M. et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial. _Lancet_ 392, 1321–1329 (2018).

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Tauschmann, M. et al. Home use of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in very young children: a multicenter, 3-week,

randomized trial. _Diabetes Care_ 42, 594–600 (2019). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Thabit, H. et al. Use of factory-calibrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring improves

time in target and HbA(1c) in a multiethnic cohort of adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: the MILLENNIALS study. _Diabetes Care_ 43, 2537–2543 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed 

Google Scholar  * Van Name, M. A. et al. Long-term continuous glucose monitor use in very young children with type 1 diabetes: one-year results from the sence study. _J. Diabetes Sci.

Technol._ 17, 976–987 (2022). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Verbeeten, K. C. et al. Fear of hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents: effect of

pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring with option of low glucose suspend in the CGM time trial. _Pediatr. Diabetes_ 22, 288–293 (2021). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Wadwa, R. P., Laffel, L. M., Shah, V. N. & Garg, S. K. Accuracy of a factory-calibrated, real-time continuous glucose monitoring system during 10 days of use in youth and adults with

diabetes. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 20, 395–402 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Ware, J. et al. Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and

adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial. _Lancet Digit. Health_ 4, e245–e255 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ware, J. et al.

Randomized trial of closed-loop control in very young children with type 1 diabetes. _N. Engl. J. Med._ 386, 209–219 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Weinzimer, S. A. et al. A

comparison of postprandial glucose control in the medtronic advanced hybrid closed-loop system versus 670g. _Diabetes Technol. Ther._ 24, 573–582 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed

Central  Google Scholar  * Wheeler, B. J. et al. Improved technology satisfaction and sleep quality with Medtronic MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop delivery compared to predictive low

glucose suspend in people with Type 1 diabetes in a randomized crossover trial. _Acta Diabetol._ 59, 31–37 (2022). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Yi, Q. et al. Comparison of

effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with daily insulin injection in a Chinese population of Type I diabetic patients. _Trop. J. Pharm. Res._ 20, 1517–1522 (2021).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Aydın Şahin, D., Başpınar, O., Sülü, A., Karslıgil, T. & Kul, S. A comparison of the in vivo neoendothelialization and wound healing processes of three

atrial septal defect occluders used during childhood in a nonrandomized prospective trial. _Anatol. J. Cardiol._ 18, 229–234 (2017). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Baird, C. W., Chavez, M.,

Backer, C. L., Galantowicz, M. E. & Del Nido, P. J. Preliminary results with a novel expanded polytetrafluoroethylene-based pulmonary valved conduit. _Ann. Thorac. Surg._ 114, 2314–2321

(2022). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Bergersen, L. et al. Harmony feasibility trial: acute and short-term outcomes with a self-expanding transcatheter pulmonary valve. _JACC

Cardiovasc. Inter._ 10, 1763–1773 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Bhattacharjya, S. et al. Prospective concurrent head-to-head comparison of three different types of nitinol occluder

device for transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defects. _EuroIntervention_ 15, E321–E328 (2019). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Choi, Y. et al. The advantage of the

mini-electrode-equipped catheter for the radiofrequency ablation of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. _J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol._ 33, 2164–2171 (2022). Article  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Delaney, J. W. et al. Covered CP stent for treatment of right ventricular conduit injury during melody transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement: results from the PARCS study.

_Circ: Cardiovasc. Inter._ 11, e006598 (2018). (no pagination). Google Scholar  * Gillespie, M. J., Javois, A. J., Moore, P., Forbes, T. & Paolillo, J. A. Use of the GORE® CARDIOFORM

Septal Occluder for percutaneous closure of secundum atrial septal defects: results of the multicenter U.S. IDE trial. _Catheter Cardiovasc. Inter._ 95, 1296–1304 (2020). Article  Google

Scholar  * Jones, T. K. et al. Long-term outcomes after melody transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement in the US investigational device exemption trial. _Circ: Cardiovasc. Inter._ 15,

e010852 (2022). Google Scholar  * Kenny, D. et al. 3-year outcomes of the Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter heart valve for conduit failure in the pulmonary position from the COMPASSION

multicenter clinical trial. _JACC: Cardiovasc. Inter._ 11, 1920–1929 (2018). Google Scholar  * Kenny, D. et al. A randomized, controlled, multi-center trial of the efficacy and safety of the

Occlutech Figulla Flex-II Occluder compared to the Amplatzer Septal Occluder for transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defects. _Catheter. Cardiovasc. Inter._ 93, 316–321 (2019).

Article  Google Scholar  * Morray, B. H. et al. Implantation of the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve PB1016 in patients with dysfunctional right ventricular outflow tract conduits.

_Catheter. Cardiovasc. Inter._ 93, 474–480 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Prodan, Z. et al. Initial clinical trial of a novel pulmonary valved conduit. _Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg._

34, 985–991 (2022). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * US Food and Drug Administration. _Pediatric Medical Devices_,

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/products-and-medical-procedures/pediatric-medical-devices (2023). * Pathak, K., Narang, C., Hwang, T. J., Espinoza, J. C. & Bourgeois, F. T. High-risk

therapeutic devices approved by the US Food and drug administration for use in children and adolescents from 2016 to 2021. _JAMA Pediatr._ 177, 98–100 (2023). Article  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Simmons, K. M. & Michels, A. W. Type 1 diabetes: a predictable disease. _World J. Diabetes_ 6, 380–390 (2015). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Zhang, B.,

Guo, J. & Zhang, H. Design and analysis of crossover trials for investigating high-risk medical devices: a review. _Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun._ 30, 101004 (2022). Article  PubMed 

PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M. T., Calvert, M. J., Stockler, M. R. & Friedlander, M. The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and

strategies for future optimization. _Patient Relat. Outcome Meas._ 9, 353–367 (2018). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Brinjikji, W. & Kallmes, D. F. How everybody wins

when playing by the rules: the benefits of investigator-initiated industry-sponsored clinical trials. _AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol._ 32, 427–429 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  * Biomedical Alliance Europe. Clinicians Concerned About Limited Availability of Medical Devices: Report of the Biomed Alliance Survey Conducted in Cooperation with the ESC

and EFFORT, https://www.biomedeurope.org/images/news/2023/Report_survey_results_v3.pdf (2023). * Guerlich, K. et al. European Expert Recommendations on Clinical Investigation and Evaluation

of High-Risk Medical Devices for Children. _Acta Paediatr_. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.16919. Online ahead of print. * Hausner, E., Metzendorf, M. I., Richter, B., Lotz, F. &

Waffenschmidt, S. Study filters for non-randomized studies of interventions consistently lacked sensitivity upon external validation. _BMC Med. Res. Methodol._ 18, 171 (2018). Article 

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to all CORE-MD consortium members, who provided us with important insights into regulatory

research and overall support to perform this project Task. We thank Dr. Benjamin Glicksberg and his co-authors for sharing with us the list of paediatric devices identified in the study by

ref. 21, for the purpose of this review. We also thank the members of the European Commission Medical Device Coordination Group Task Force on Orphan Devices for helpful discussions and

comments. FUNDING This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 965246 (CORE-MD Project). BK is the Else

Kröner Senior Professor of Paediatrics at LMU—University of Munich, financially supported by Else Kröner-Fresenius-Foundation, LMU Medical Faculty and LMU University Hospitals. BPG is

supported by a grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Bonn, Germany. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. AUTHOR INFORMATION Author notes * These authors

contributed equally: Kathrin Guerlich, Bernadeta Patro-Golab. AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * LMU—Ludwig Maximilians Universität Munich, Division of Metabolic and Nutritional Medicine, Department

of Pediatrics, Dr. von Hauner Children’s Hospital, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany Kathrin Guerlich, Bernadeta Patro-Golab, Michael Kammermeier & Berthold Koletzko * Child

Health Foundation - Stiftung Kindergesundheit, c/o Dr. von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, Germany Kathrin Guerlich & Berthold Koletzko * Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Paulina Dworakowski * Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK Alan G. Fraser * Department of Gerontology, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin,

Dublin, Ireland Tom Melvin * European Academy of Paediatrics, Brussels, Belgium Berthold Koletzko Authors * Kathrin Guerlich View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * Bernadeta Patro-Golab View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Paulina Dworakowski View author publications You can

also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Alan G. Fraser View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Michael Kammermeier View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Tom Melvin View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Berthold Koletzko

View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS KG, BPG, AGF, TM and BK designed the review. KG, BPG, MK and PD performed the screening

and data extraction. KG, BPG and MK analysed the material. KG and BPG drafted and finalized the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Berthold Koletzko. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS TM has engaged in paid clinical training for a notified body, National Standards Authority

of Ireland. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION PRISMA-SCR-CHECKLIST SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL_TABLE 1+2+4+5 SUPPLEMENTARY_MATERIAL_TABLE_3 RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original

author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the

article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use

is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Guerlich, K., Patro-Golab, B., Dworakowski, P. _et al._ Evidence from clinical

trials on high-risk medical devices in children: a scoping review. _Pediatr Res_ 95, 615–624 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02819-4 Download citation * Received: 21 July 2023 *

Revised: 31 August 2023 * Accepted: 03 September 2023 * Published: 28 September 2023 * Issue Date: February 2024 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02819-4 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone

you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the

Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative