ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Deficiencies of the EU Medical Device Regulation when applying its own rules.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) was developed to improve the safety of medical devices as well as the smooth functioning of the market in this field. Since it entered into force in 2017, there have been continuous debates about the actual success thereof. However, no consequent analysis was provided until now. In this paper, we contribute to this endeavor. We analyzed whether the MDR meets appropriate standards that it requires for the development of medical products. In other words, we raised the question of whether the MDR could be placed on the market if we were to apply the rules of the MDR to itself. Methods: For this purpose, the analysis was based on the MDR and its Recitals, Articles, and Annexes, as well as the components implementing the regulatory system based on it. We checked whether basic principles for product development and the setup of regulatory systems in the field of medical devices are fulfilled. We asked whether basic development steps for the MDR have been realized appropriately, according to these principles and standards. Results: The analysis showed that the MDR contains substantial deficiencies regarding a consequent implementation of product development standards. For example, this applies to core principles like transparency, clarity, and traceability of requirements, appropriate implementation of risk management and validation steps, or realization of governance structures. According to our findings, the MDR would fail when we applied its own rules. In particular, central goals of the MDR like the smooth functioning of the market and the safety of the regulatory system were not addressed consequently. Discussion: According to the high impact the MDR has on the medical device sector but also on the healthcare system in general, our analysis motivates improvements of the MDR-based regulatory system that take these deficiencies into account. This paper provides basic insights into the application of basic principles regarding the implementation of regulatory systems. This should be complemented by further evaluation steps regarding the actual performance of the MDR during its operational phase. Based on this, consequent steps for the actual improvement should be derived to finally achieve a high-quality regulatory system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.