Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40727673›Full record

ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025

Cybersecurity requirements for medical devices in the EU and US - A comparison and gap analysis of the MDCG 2019-16 and FDA premarket cybersecurity guidance.

Max Ostermann, Rebecca Mathias, Fatemeh Jahed, Mitchell B Parker, Florence D Hudson, William C Harding, Stephen Gilbert, Oscar Freyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Max OstermannElse Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Rebecca MathiasElse Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Fatemeh JahedElse Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Mitchell B ParkerInformation Security and Compliance, Indiana University Health, Indiana University Health University Hospital, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Florence D HudsonNortheast Big Data Innovation Hub, Data Science Institute, Columbia University, FDHint LLC, New York, USA.
William C HardingCollege of Graduate and Professional Studies, Trine University, Angola, IN, USA.
Stephen GilbertElse Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Oscar FreyerElse Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing use of connected medical devices has led to substantial cybersecurity challenges, putting patient safety and the integrity of healthcare infrastructures at risk. This study examines regulatory guidance on medical device cybersecurity in the European Union (guidance document of Medical Device Coordination Group MDCG 2019-16 revision 1) and the United States (US Food and Drug Administration Guidance on Cybersecurity) and identifies their strengths and weaknesses. First, the study compares these documents with a baseline requirements framework derived from international standards and best practices, revealing gaps in the thematic areas of "Cryptography," "Authentication & Access Control," and "Source Code/Software Development." Second, the guidance documents were compared with real-world cybersecurity incidents, showing that the current guidance documents would help to mitigate the weaknesses of important vulnerability examples, while recommendations are missing in both guidance documents, but more so in MDCG 2019-16, for the most important weaknesses. In conclusion, both guidance documents are inadequately formulated in certain aspects, have an unclear scope, inconsistent levels of detail, and contain thematic gaps. These gaps could result in manufacturers failing to sufficiently address cybersecurity concerns in their products, thereby creating vulnerabilities. This study highlights the need for future guidance documents to be clearer in scope and to close existing gaps to ultimately allow safer medical devices.

Indexed as

CybersecurityMedical devicesRegulatory science

Identifiers

PMID40727673
PMCPMC12301760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.