IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. 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. O’Brien, Diana Z. & Rickne, Johanna, 2016. "Gender Quotas and Women's Political Leadership," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 112-126, February.
    2. Stephanie Sardelis & Joshua A Drew, 2016. "Not “Pulling up the Ladder”: Women Who Organize Conference Symposia Provide Greater Opportunities for Women to Speak at Conservation Conferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Bodea, Cristina & Kerner, Andrew, 2022. "Fear of inflation and gender representation in central banking," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Scott Radnitz, 2018. "Historical narratives and post-conflict reconciliation: An experiment in Azerbaijan," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 154-174, March.
    7. Alicia R. Ingersoll & Christy Glass & Alison Cook & Kari Joseph Olsen, 2019. "Power, Status and Expectations: How Narcissism Manifests Among Women CEOs," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(4), pages 893-907, September.
    8. Rolf Brühl, 2025. "Should They Go, or May They Stay: Companies in Aggressor States," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 197(2), pages 271-288, March.
    9. Rui Nan & Yongjiao Yang, 2022. "Who Is Willing to Participate in Local Governance? Modernization of Shared Governance in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Fanni Bársony & György Lengyel & Éva Perpék, 2020. "Enclave deliberation and common-pool resources: an attempt to apply Civic Preference Forum on community gardening in Hungary," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 687-708, April.
    11. Marta Fraile, 2014. "Does deliberation contribute to decreasing the gender gap in knowledge?," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 372-388, September.
    12. Schäfer, Andreas & Merkel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Emanzipation oder Reaktion: Wie konservativ ist die deliberative Demokratie? [Emancipation or Reaction: How Conservative is Deliberative Democracy?]," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 61(3), pages 449-472.
    13. Daniel Stockemer & Gabriela Galassi & Engi Abou-El-Kheir, 2025. "A Fresh Look at the Publication and Citation Gap Between Men and Women: Insights from Economics and Political Science," Staff Working Papers 25-13, Bank of Canada.
    14. Ruth Lewis & Elizabeth Sharp & Jenni Remnant & Rhiannon Redpath, 2015. "‘Safe Spaces’: Experiences of Feminist Women-Only Space," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 20(4), pages 105-118, November.
    15. Domínguez, José J., 2023. "Diversified committees in hiring processes: Lab evidence on group dynamics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Raina, Gurdeep Singh & Sahaym, Arvin & Sheppard, Leah D., 2024. "The more the merrier? Exploring the effect of women on boards on the gender pay gap in top management teams," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    17. Francisco-Javier Herrero-Gutiérrez & Núria Simelio & Lara Carrascosa Puertas, 2021. "Women Mayors in Spain: An Analysis of Gender Differences in the Management and Quality of Information on Municipal Websites," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
    18. Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl & Iyabo Obasanjo, 2019. "Do parliamentary gender quotas decrease gender inequality? The case of African countries," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 149-176, June.
    19. repec:plo:pone00:0207691 is not listed on IDEAS

    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.