FDA Issues Draft Guidance: Form and Content of the Unique Device Identifier (UDI)

When finalized, this draft document will clarify for industry, FDA-accredited issuing agencies, and FDA staff the requirements under 21 CFR 801.40. Specifically, this draft guidance defines the expected content and forms of the Unique Device Identifier (UDI), to assist both labelers, as defined under 21 CFR 801.3, and FDA-accredited issuing agencies, as defined under 21 CFR 830.3, to better ensure the UDIs developed under systems for the issuance of UDIs are in compliance with the Unique Device Identification System Rule, 78 FR 58786 (September 24, 2013) (UDI Rule).

Read the draft guidance.

Published Oct. 13 in the BMJ: Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization

Conclusions: Patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization have a similar risk of unintended pregnancy but a more than 10-fold higher risk of undergoing reoperation compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic sterilization. Benefits and risks of both procedures should be discussed with patients for informed decisions making.

Read the full paper here: http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5162

Additional news coverage:

BBC News

NY Times

Wall Street Journal


NBC News

Consumer HealthDay

Modern Healthcare




Review of clinical outcomes-based anchors of minimum clinically important differences in hip and knee registry-based reports and publications

Journal Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume
Authors Romero, Lucas; Nieuwenhuijse, Marc; Carr, Andrew; Sedrakyan, Art
Year Published 2014
Link to article


Patient-reported outcome measures are tools that allow clinicians and researchers to gauge patients’ level of satisfaction and quality of life after a medical intervention. The use of patient-reported outcome measures and the clinically relevant score differentials over time as they relate to outcomes (minimum clinically important differences) has been proposed as a way to understand success and failure rates in orthopaedics. We conducted a systematic appraisal of literature in peer-reviewed journals and registry reports to measure the use that registries and other large data repositories make of minimum clinically important differences and to understand methodological approaches for such uses. Of the nineteen registry reports and 1052 articles examined, we found that only one report and two studies mentioned the use of patient-reported outcome measures and minimum clinically important differences in the context of revision rates of total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. We conclude that although the infrastructure and efforts to routinely collect patient-reported outcome measures at registry levels do exist, there is limited use of minimum clinically important differences to understand and potentially predict clinical outcomes. We suggest advancing the global infrastructure such as the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries to address how research related to patient-reported outcome measures can help individual registries collaborate in the development of tools and allow aggregation of data.