BOMs are released as part of the Device Master Record and drive purchasing, planning, costing, and traceability. Engineering, manufacturing, and service BOMs may differ in level of detail. Each BOM line lists the part number, revision, quantity and unit of measure, and often the approved supplier. BOM changes go through formal change control because they can affect validation, UDI and labeling. Many companies manage BOMs in a PLM system and sync them to ERP so manufacturing always builds to the latest released revision.

Why it matters

BOM accuracy is foundational for UDI assignment, lot traceability, and recall scoping; errors propagate broadly.

Common pitfalls

•A common pitfall is failing to maintain an accurate BOM throughout the device lifecycle, leading to discrepancies between the documented and actual device configurations.
•Another mistake is not linking the BOM to other critical quality system elements, such as risk management files or design outputs.
•Inadequate version control of BOMs can result in the use of obsolete or incorrect components in medical device manufacturing.
•Failing to account for software and cybersecurity-related components in the BOM can lead to gaps in addressing software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) requirements and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
•Not ensuring that supplier changes are reflected in the BOM can result in non-conforming materials being used in production.

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

Regulatory pathway choice - 510(k) vs PMA, 510(k) vs De Novo, Abbreviated vs Special 510(k).
Quality systems - QSR vs ISO 13485, QMSR vs QSR.
Software classification - SaMD vs SiMD, Locked vs adaptive AI.
EU frameworks - MDR vs IVDR, CE Mark vs UKCA.
Cybersecurity artifacts - SPDX vs CycloneDX SBOM, CVE vs CVSS.
Post-market actions - Recall vs field action, Removal vs correction.

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.