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.

    Quality & Risk

    Design History File(DHF)

    In one line
    Compilation of records describing the design history of a finished device.
    Definition
    The Design History File (DHF) contains or references the records necessary to demonstrate that the design was developed in accordance with the approved design plan and the design control requirements of 21 CFR 820.30. Typical DHF content includes the design plan, design inputs and outputs, design review records, verification and validation reports, risk management records, design transfer evidence and design changes. Under the QMSR, FDA no longer uses the DHF term by name; ISO 13485 clause 7.3.10 requires 'design and development files', which serve the same purpose. Many companies keep the DHF label for continuity.
    Why it matters
    The DHF is a key inspection artifact. Under the upcoming QMSR, the DHF concept is harmonized with ISO 13485's design and development records.
    Common pitfalls
    • •Failing to update the DHF throughout the entire product lifecycle, not just during initial development, is a common oversight.
    • •Including only final versions of documents and omitting interim decisions or rationale can lead to an incomplete DHF.
    • •Maintaining physical and electronic records in disconnected systems can make DHF retrieval and review challenging during audits.
    • •Not cross-referencing DHF contents effectively, making it difficult to demonstrate traceability between design inputs, outputs, verification, and validation.
    • •Treating the DHF as a mere paper exercise rather than a dynamic compilation of design evidence often results in critical information gaps.
    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.