Compare

    Two terms, side by side

    Pick any two terms to see definitions, context, pitfalls, and sources in parallel.

    Curated comparison tables

    In-depth, attribute-by-attribute tables for the most common MedTech term pairs. Each row is sourced from the linked term pages.

    Clinical & Trials

    Adverse Event(AE)

    In one line
    Any untoward medical occurrence in a subject, whether or not related to the device.
    Definition
    Per ISO 14155, an adverse event is any untoward medical occurrence, unintended disease or injury, or untoward clinical signs in subjects, users, or other persons, whether or not related to the investigational device. ISO 14155 asks sponsors to record all adverse events in a device investigation and to assess each for seriousness and for relationship to the device or procedure. Adverse device effects are the subset related to the device. Clinical investigation plans define how events are collected, coded (often with MedDRA) and adjudicated, and the results feed safety reporting and the final clinical investigation report.
    Why it matters
    AEs are the foundational unit of clinical safety reporting. Serious AEs (SAEs) and device-related AEs (ADEs/SADEs) trigger expedited reporting obligations.
    Common pitfalls
    • •Confusing an adverse event with a device malfunction that did not lead to an adverse clinical outcome, as these have distinct reporting pathways.
    • •Failing to initiate an investigation or report an adverse event due to a perceived lack of direct causal link to the device, as all untoward occurrences must be assessed.
    • •Delaying the reporting of serious adverse events (SAEs) beyond the mandated regulatory timelines, which can lead to non-compliance.
    • •Not adequately documenting the assessment of causality between the device and the adverse event, which is critical for regulatory review.
    • •Inconsistently applying definitions of "serious" across different studies or reporting jurisdictions, causing reporting errors.
    Open full page
    Select term B to compare.

    Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

    MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

    Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

    Common comparison patterns

    How to use this tool

    Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

    MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.