Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42507354

An impact assessment of the European medical device regulations implementation - the current status quo.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This research aims to assess the current impact of the medical and in-vitro diagnostic devices regulations (MDR/IVDR) on the device industry in the EU, under the lens of postimplementation and the amending regulation, and in advance of the final transition to the IVDR/MDR in the future. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A quantitative survey was administered to a diverse cohort of medical device enterprises, ranging from micro to large organizations. RESULTS: The survey indicates that the MDR/IVDR has harmed innovation, leading many manufacturers to seek initial device approval and launch elsewhere before in Europe. There is evidence that some manufacturers have rationalized their existing product portfolios and removed devices from the market as they stated they would in previous industry surveys. The MDR/IVDR has been shown to negatively impact manufacturers, with increased costs related to notified body (NB) fees, maintaining and updating documentation, recertification fees, and hiring additional staff. CONCLUSION: This study provides a current status of the effects of MDR/IVDR on manufacturers and finds that despite amending regulations and other interventions taken by the EU to mitigate regulatory burden, ensure product availability, and address stakeholder concerns, the EU is no longer the market of choice for new products.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Olivia McDermott, Martha Folan, Panos Stafylas. 2026-07-28. An impact assessment of the European medical device regulations implementation - the current status quo.. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2026.2710398

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Insights from expert panels on the EU clinical evaluation consultation procedure.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) under the EU Medical Device Regulation aims to strengthen and harmonize the assessment of high-risk medical devices. This review summarizes early insights from expert panels to support improved clinical evaluation practices. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This review analyses 34 expert panel opinions derived from 281 CECP submissions between April 2021 and December 2025. Statements from opinions were systematically extracted, de-duplicated, and grouped into thematic categories, with independent review and validation. The analysis focuses on common challenges found during the consultation procedure of the expert panels on the content of the clinical assessment in relation to clinical evidence, benefit-risk assessment, intended purpose alignment, and post-market clinical follow-up planning. RESULTS: Expert panel findings highlight recurrent issues in the sufficiency, consistency, and transparency of clinical evidence, underscoring the need for improved standardization and clearer guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Strengthening documentation quality and alignment across stakeholders will enhance the robustness, efficiency, and predictability of conformity assessments for high-risk medical devices.

Humans

Review of regulatory requirements for benefit-risk assessment for medical devices: uncovering existing methodologies.

INTRODUCTION: A positive benefit-risk profile is a prerequisite for the market approval of medical devices. However, regulations are often criticized for providing limited information on benefit-risk assessment (BRA) despite growing expectations for quantitative methods. A clearer understanding of regulatory requirements, existing methodologies, and unresolved issues is needed. AREAS COVERED: Relevant regulatory documents referencing BRA for medical devices were systematically identified, with a primary focus on the European regulation followed by screening to extract BRA‑related requirements and any explicitly or implicitly described methods. The findings were analyzed and consolidated by BRA context, type, objective, methodological description, and implementation, thereby establishing a basis for the BRA methodological landscape. EXPERT OPINION: BRA is not a single concept, but a set of context‑dependent assessments across lifecycle of a medical device. BRA within clinical evaluation framed into BRAs of risk management holds a pivotal role and is supported by the most detailed methodological guidance, although BRAs in other contexts are important. A structured overview of existing BRA requirements clarifies their treatment across regulatory documents. By differentiating BRA contexts, types, objectives, and required methodological detail, the analysis supports a more transparent understanding of BRA and helps identify priorities for methodological refinement and interface clarification.

Risk Assessment

Discarding Bedside Cart Paper-Packaged Supplies Between Patients: What Evidence Is Required?

BACKGROUND: Discarding paper-packaged sterile supplies from bedside supply carts between patients in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) is a potential practice to target for environmental stewardship. OBJECTIVES: To determine opinions about this practice, including what evidence should be required to implement and what evidence would be adequate to abandon it. METHODS: A survey was distributed to all pediatric intensivists engaged in multicenter research in Canada and to all PICU nurses at one institution in Canada. RESULTS: The response rate was 75 of 254 (30%). The practice occurred in 54 (72%) of the respondents' units. Ten respondents (13%) agreed the practice was effective in preventing nosocomial infections. Most respondents agreed the practice should be based on empirical evidence, including a combination of improved patient outcomes (n = 57, 76%), rate of contamination of supplies within the supply carts (n = 55, 73%), and survivability of pathogens inoculated onto paper (n = 56, 75%). Most respondents agreed they would be comfortable with a randomized controlled trial (n = 52, 69%) and would support action based on the results (n = 54, 72%). The potential trial outcome most highly ranked was next-patient nosocomial infection with pathogen from the previous patient (n = 23, 31%); this was ranked more often by intensivists (P = .005). Other outcomes highly ranked included next-patient colonization with pathogen from the previous patient (n = 44, 59%) and pathogen detection on supplies within the supply cart (n = 43, 57%). CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents agreed that the practice was not based on empirical evidence, agreed the practice should be based on empirical evidence, and would agree to a randomized trial with patient-important outcomes.

Humans