Volume 28, Issue 1 - Careers in medical writing

Career opportunities in medical device writing: Employee and freelance perspectives

Authors: Sarah Choudhury, Gillian Pritchard

Abstract

Download the full article

References

1. European Commission. MEDDEV 2.7/1 revision 4. Clinical Evaluation: A Guide for Manufacturers and Notified Bodies Under Directives 93/42/EEC and 90/385/EEC. 2016.
2. 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. Official Journal of the European Union. 2017;L117:1–175.
3. European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU. Official Journal of the European Union. 2017;L117:176–332.
4. Walker S, Opie J, Whitman S, et al. Writing for pharmaceutical or medical device companies: a survey of entry requirements, career paths, quality of life, and personal observations. Med Writ. 2016;25:21–9.
5. Opie J. Life as a medical writer for a medical device company. The Write Stuff. 2011;20:88–9.
6. De Faoite D. Medical devices: an exciting industry at a crossroads. Med Writ. 2017;26:1–2.
7. Doerr B, Whitman S, Walker S. Writing for medical devices compared to pharmaceuticals: an introduction. Med Writ. 2017;26:8–13.
8. Billiones R. Medical devices in the disclosure era and the role of medical writers. Med Writ. 2017;26:32–4.
9. Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. ABPI Careers. 2016 [cited 2018 Dec 7]. Available from: http://careers.abpi.org.uk/Pages/ default. aspx.
10. Standardization IOf. ISO 14155– 1:2003 Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects. Part 1: General requirements. 2003.
11. Standardization IOf. ISO 14155– 2:2003 Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects. Part 2: Clinical investigation plans. 2003.
12. Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Payne CJ, et al. Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery: A retrospective observational study. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13.
13. Rassweiler JJ, Autorino R, Klein J, et al. Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int. 2017;120:822–41.
14. Albright BB, Witte T, Tofte AN, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:18–27.
15. Feldwisch-Dentrup H. New clues why a French drug trial went horribly wrong. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2017 [cited 2018 Dec 7]. Available from: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/ 06/new-clues-why-french-drug-trial-wenthorribly- wrong.
16. Vince G. DN9226 UK drug trial disaster the official report. New Scientist Ltd., 2006 [cited 2018 Dec 7]. Available from: https://www.newscientist.com/article/ dn9226-uk-drug-trial-disaster-the-officialreport/.
17. Devices FIf DaM. Silicone gel breast implants, from Poly Implant Prothèse Company. 2017 [cited 2018 Dec 7]. Available from: http://www.bfarm.de/ SharedDocs/Risikoinformationen/ Medizinprodukte/EN/silicone_breast_ implants_PIP_info.html.