ISO 14155 and MDR Annex XV define the required content of the CIP - objectives, design, statistical considerations, ethical considerations, monitoring, and reporting. Functionally analogous to a U.S. clinical investigation protocol. The CIP covers the device description, endpoints, eligibility, sample size justification, follow-up schedule, adverse event handling, data management and the risk-benefit rationale. It must be approved by ethics committees and, where required, competent authorities before enrollment. Changes go through formal amendments, and the CIP forms the basis for monitoring, deviation assessment and the final clinical investigation report.

Why it matters

Sponsors running global trials typically maintain a single harmonized CIP/Protocol with regional appendices for FDA, MDR, and other regulators.

Common pitfalls

•Failing to align the CIP with the Investigational Device Brochure (IDB) can lead to regulatory delays and ethical concerns.
•Inadequate statistical planning in the CIP can result in a study that is underpowered or unable to demonstrate its primary endpoints effectively.
•Not clearly defining stopping rules or adverse event reporting procedures within the CIP can jeopardize patient safety and regulatory compliance.
•Overlooking the need for regional appendices in the CIP for multi-national trials can cause non-compliance with local regulations.
•Submitting a CIP without a thorough risk management plan, as per ISO 14971, can lead to study approval issues.

Sources

ISO 14155 · ISO
FDA - Clinical Trials and Human Subject Protection · FDA
ClinicalTrials.gov · NIH

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.