SciMed’s
A free monthly digital magazine for Clinical, Regulatory & Quality teams: MDR/IVDR updates, Clinical Evaluation deep dives, PMCF & PMS guidance.
MedTech Horizon
Trusted by Leading MedTech Manufacturers
Written by Senior MedTech Regulatory Specialists
Built for in-house MedTech Regulatory Teams
In Every Issue:
One In-Depth Analysis,
A Practical Resource, and
Regulatory Intelligence Briefings with Upcoming Deadlines.
One email per month. Senior-level regulatory insight. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MDCG 2020-6: Clinical Evidence for Legacy Devices and WET Under EU MDR
MDCG 2020-6 explains how to assess clinical evidence for legacy devices under the EU MDR, including what the 2026 changes mean for clinical-investigation exemptions and ongoing evidence requirements.
MEDDEV 2.7/1 Rev.4 Under EU MDR: What Still Matters and What Has Changed
MEDDEV 2.7/1 Rev.4 remains a valuable methodological resource, but the EU MDR has changed the requirements for clinical evaluation. Discover which elements of the guidance still apply, where MDR takes precedence, and how manufacturers can update legacy Clinical Evaluation Reports to meet current expectations.
MDR Annex XIV: What It Requires for Clinical Evaluation and PMCF
MDR Annex XIV establishes a lifecycle approach to clinical evaluation, from planning and evidence appraisal through to PMCF. This article explains the key requirements, common gaps and how CEP, CER, PMS and PMCF should work together to maintain robust clinical evidence throughout the device lifecycle.
MDCG 2020-5: How to Demonstrate Equivalence Under EU MDR
MDCG 2020-5 sets out how equivalence must be demonstrated under the EU MDR. We break down the technical, biological and clinical requirements, where equivalence strategies commonly fail, and what manufacturers should review before relying on comparator-device data.
Legacy-Device CER Updates Under MDR
Many legacy-device Clinical Evaluation Reports fail MDR review for the same recurring reasons: outdated equivalence claims, frozen state-of-the-art sections, weak literature methodologies, disconnected PMCF evidence, and unsupported benefit-risk conclusions. This article examines the most common gaps identified during CER updates and explains how manufacturers can address them before they become costly review findings.
Medical Device Claims Under EU MDR and UK MDR
Making claims about a device appears deceptively simple as a statement about what a device does. But in regulatory practice - especially under the EU MDR and UK MDR - claims are far more than that. They define the device’s intended purpose, which not only describes what the device is designed to do but also dictates the regulatory scope of the device itself.
Building a Defensible Clinical Literature Review
A poorly planned literature review can lead to insufficient evidence, regulatory delays, and increased scrutiny from notified bodies. Many compliance challenges arise not from a lack of data, but from poorly designed literature strategies, making the quality of the review process critical to a defensible clinical evaluation.
12 Reasons Your CER Might Fail a Notified Body Review in 2026
Notified Body reviewers approach CERs differently than they did three years ago. The evidential bar has risen, scrutiny on equivalence claims has tightened, and structural weaknesses that once passed without comment now generate major findings. This article covers the twelve failure modes we see most often — and what needs to change in each case.
Spotlight on the Clinical Evaluation Process
Clinical Evaluation is more than documentation. It is an ongoing process of analysing evidence, assessing safety and performance, and demonstrating that a medical device delivers clinical benefit throughout its lifecycle.
MDR Clinical Data - New for 2026
In December 2025, the European Commission proposed targeted amendments to the EU medical device framework aimed at simplifying MDR and IVDR requirements. Among the most significant changes are broader acceptance of clinical and non-clinical data, more flexible equivalence provisions, and the introduction of “well-established technologies” for legacy devices - developments that could reshape clinical evidence strategies in 2026 and beyond.
EU MDR Clinical Evaluation for MedTech Start-Ups
For MedTech start-ups, clinical evaluation under the EU MDR is no longer a box-ticking exercise - it’s a strategic part of product development. By planning early, leveraging existing evidence, and embedding regulatory thinking from day one, companies can turn compliance into a competitive advantage and a pathway to credible market entry.
Proving Safety Without Clinical Investigations
This article outlines how clinical evaluation under the EU MDR can, in certain cases, be conducted without new clinical trials, and explains the regulatory pathways, evidence requirements, and role of PMCF in demonstrating safety and performance.
MDR Clinical Data in 2025
This article outlines the types of clinical data sources that are accepted, identifies common sources of non-compliance, and provides practical guidance for building a robust, compliant clinical evidence strategy under the MDR framework.
How to Prepare a Clinical Evaluation Plan Aligned with MDR Annex XIV
Under MDR Annex XIV, the CEP is your anchor document. Define scope, map data, integrate risk and PMS, and show foresight. A robust CEP reassures notified bodies and builds a sustainable compliance framework for product safety and performance.
How to Update your Clinical Evaluation for Legacy Devices
MDR demands stronger clinical justification for legacy devices. Whether relying on WET status, Article 61(10), or targeted PMCF, manufacturers need structured Clinical Evaluation planning to demonstrate compliance and safeguard CE certification.
Is Your Clinical Evaluation MDR-Ready?
A structured guide to Article 61 and Annex XIV clinical evaluation requirements, and what “MDR-ready” truly means under current Notified Body scrutiny.