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.

    Post-Market

    Annual Report (PMA)

    In one line
    Yearly report required for Class III PMA devices summarizing changes, complaints, and post-approval study status.
    Definition
    21 CFR 814.84 requires PMA holders to submit annual reports within 60 days of the PMA approval anniversary, summarizing unreported changes, adverse reaction summaries, and progress on post-approval study commitments. Annual reports cover changes made under the 'reported in annual report' route of 21 CFR 814.39(b), summaries of literature and unpublished reports on the device, and any adverse experience data not already reported under Part 803. PMA conditions of approval may require additional content. Changes that affect safety or effectiveness need a PMA supplement instead and cannot wait for the annual report.
    Why it matters
    Late or incomplete PMA Annual Reports trigger Warning Letters and can affect approval status.
    Common pitfalls
    • •Failing to submit the annual report within 60 days of the PMA anniversary can lead to regulatory action, including Warning Letters.
    • •Incomplete annual reports, especially those lacking required summaries of changes or adverse events, are a common pitfall.
    • •Overlooking the summarization of progress on post-approval study commitments can render the report deficient.
    • •Assuming no changes or adverse events means no report is necessary is incorrect, as a report confirming this is still required.
    • •Not maintaining thorough documentation throughout the year to easily compile the annual report can result in last-minute rushes and errors.
    Sources
    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.