Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41308513›Full record

ReviewESMO open2025

Regulation of laboratory-developed tests and in-house in vitro diagnostic medical devices in the United States and the European Union-a comparative overview.

A Kahles, A-L Volckmar, H Goldschmid, M Salto-Tellez, M Vogeser, J Stone, M Brüggemann, J Budczies, D Kazdal, R Salgado and 4 more

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Review in ESMO open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Regulatory science for AI-basedJournal of pathology informatics · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

14 authors.

A KahlesInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: andy.kahles@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
A-L VolckmarInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
H GoldschmidInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
M Salto-TellezPrecision Medicine Centre, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
M VogeserInstitute of Laboratory Medicine, LMU University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
J StoneMass Spectrometry & Advances in the Clinical Lab-Compliance and Accreditation Committee, Del Mar, USA.
M Brüggemann2nd Internal Medicine Department, Hematology Lab Kiel, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel, Germany.
J BudcziesInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
D KazdalInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
R SalgadoDepartment of Pathology, ZAS Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium; Division of Research, Peter Mac Callum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
P SchirmacherInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
S PetersMedical Oncology, Oncology Department - CHUV Lausanne University, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J K LennerzBostonGene Corporation, Waltham, USA.
A StenzingerInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: albrecht.stenzinger@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Process chains in medical diagnostic laboratories lead to an accurate diagnosis and consequently to optimized personalized therapy recommendations. In addition to approved commercial in vitro diagnostic medical devices, devices and tests manufactured and used within a single diagnostic laboratory play a decisive role in these process chains ensuring state-of-the-art diagnostics and consecutive best patient care. It is vital that the implementation and use of such in-house tests, processes and medical devices developed in diagnostic laboratories by health care professionals is quality assured and meets regulatory and legal requirements. Due to the complexity and variety of these tests as well as their dual use in routine care and clinical trials, a thorough understanding of these regulations and their underlying definitions is critical. This review provides a comparative overview of the current state of the regulation of laboratory-developed tests in the United States and in-house developed in vitro diagnostic medical devices in the European Union. It dissects and compares the relevant regulatory ecosystems to identify conceptual similarities and differences. Our work helps laboratories navigate the regulatory landscape and provides a basis for further discussions among key stakeholders including health care providers, payers, legislators and regulatory agencies.

Indexed as

Diagnostic EquipmentEquipment and SuppliesEuropean UnionHumansUnited StatesFDAin-house in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IH-IVD)IVDRlaboratory developed tests (LDT)legislationregulation

Identifiers

PMID41308513
PMCPMC12702205

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.