IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267134.html

Voting behavior during FDA Medical Device Advisory Committee panel meetings

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda Maisel-Campbell
  • Daniel I Schlessinger
  • Arianna F Yanes
  • Emir Veledar
  • Kelly A Reynolds
  • Sarah A Ibrahim
  • Bianca Y Kang
  • Noor Anvery
  • Emily Poon
  • Murad Alam

Abstract

Objectives: During premarket review, the US Food and Drug Administration may ask its Medical Device Advisory Committee (MDAC) Panels to assess the safety and effectiveness of medical devices being considered for approval. The objective of this study is to assess the relationship, if any, between individual votes and Panel recommendations and: (1) the composition of Panels, specifically the expertise and demographic features of individual members; or (2) Panel members’ propensity to speak during Panel deliberations. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of routinely collected data from voting members of MDAC panels convened between January 2011 to June 2016 to consider premarket approval. Data sources were verbatim transcripts available publicly from the FDA. Number of words spoken, directionality of votes on device approval, profession, and demographics were collected. Results: 658,954 words spoken by 536 members during 49 meetings of 11 Panels were analyzed. Based on multivariate analysis, biostatisticians spoke more (+373 words; P = 0.0002), and women (-187 words; P = 0.0184) and other non-physician voting members less (-213 words; P = 0.0306), than physicians. Speaking more was associated with abstaining (P = 0.0179), and with voting against the majority (P = 0.0153). Non-physician, non-biostatistician members (P = 0.0109), and those having attended more meetings as a voting member (P = 0.0249) were more likely to vote against approval. In bivariable analysis, unanimous Panels had a greater proportion of biostatisticians (mean 0.1580; 95% CI 0.1237–0.1923) than non-unanimous Panels (0.1107; 95% CI 0.0912–0.1301; p = 0.0201). Conclusions: Panelists likely to vote against the majority include non-physician, non-biostatisticians; experienced Panelists; and more talkative members. The increased presence of biostatisticians on Panels leads to greater voting consensus. Having a diversity of opinions on Panels, including in sufficient numbers those members likely to dissent from majority views, may help ensure that a diversity of opinions are aired before decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda Maisel-Campbell & Daniel I Schlessinger & Arianna F Yanes & Emir Veledar & Kelly A Reynolds & Sarah A Ibrahim & Bianca Y Kang & Noor Anvery & Emily Poon & Murad Alam, 2022. "Voting behavior during FDA Medical Device Advisory Committee panel meetings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-12, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267134
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267134
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267134&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267134?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    2. Karpowitz, Christopher F. & Mendelberg, Tali & Shaker, Lee, 2012. "Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(3), pages 533-547, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Paola, Maria & Lombardo, Rosetta & Pupo, Valeria & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2021. "Do Women Shy Away from Public Speaking? A Field Experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    3. Finn Spilker & Christian Deutscher & Marius Ötting & Hendrik Sonnabend, 2025. "Favouritism, social pressure, and gender," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 77(3), pages 754-770.
    4. Domínguez, José J., 2023. "Diversified committees in hiring processes: Lab evidence on group dynamics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Ifcher, John & Zarghamee, Homa, 2020. "Competitive Preferences among Asians in the U.S," IZA Discussion Papers 13913, IZA Network @ LISER.
    6. Bobba, Matteo & Frisancho, Veronica, 2022. "Self-perceptions about academic achievement: Evidence from Mexico City," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 58-73.
    7. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    8. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    9. Bottazzi, Laura & Lusardi, Annamaria, 2021. "Stereotypes in financial literacy: Evidence from PISA," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    10. Lou, Hanlin & Page, Lionel & Xu, Hui, 2025. "Small ponds are best to motivate performance with relative feedback," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    11. Bjorvatn, Kjetil & Falch, Ranveig & Hernæs, Ulrikke, 2016. "Gender, context and competition: Experimental evidence from rural and urban Uganda," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 31-37.
    12. Lennox, Clive & Wang, Chunfei & Wu, Xi, 2023. "Delegated leadership at public accounting firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1).
    13. Thomas Buser & Muriel Niederle & Hessel Oosterbeek, 2014. "Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(3), pages 1409-1447.
    14. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    15. Brenøe, Anne Ardila & Eyibak, Zeynep & Heursen, Lea & Ranehill, Eva & Weber, Roberto A., 2024. "Gender Identity and Economic Decision Making," IZA Discussion Papers 17564, IZA Network @ LISER.
    16. Filip Hampl & Dagmar Vágnerová Linnertová, 2025. "How the interaction between board gender diversity and ESG shapes dividend policy," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 2472-2490, March.
    17. Christian Pfeifer & Gesine Stephan, 2019. "Why women do not ask: gender differences in fairness perceptions of own wages and subsequent wage growth," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(2), pages 295-310.
    18. Chi Trieu, 2023. "Who’s who: how uncertainty about the favored group affects outcomes of affirmative action," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 252-292, December.
    19. Buser, Thomas & Ranehill, Eva & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Gender differences in willingness to compete: The role of public observability," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    20. Ro’i Zultan & Eldar Dadon, 2023. "Missing the forest for the trees: when monitoring quantitative measures distorts task prioritization," Working Papers 2319, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.