Document control under 21 CFR 820.40 and ISO 13485 clause 4.2.4 requires review and approval of documents before issue, identification of revisions, availability at points of use, and prevention of unintended use of obsolete documents. Controlled documents typically include procedures, work instructions, specifications, drawings, forms, labeling and software. Changes must be reviewed and approved by the original function or a designated one with access to background information, and at least one copy of obsolete documents must be kept for the device's lifetime or as required. Electronic document systems should meet data integrity expectations, including 21 CFR Part 11 where electronic records are used.

Why it matters

Most QMS-driven inspection findings touch document control. Electronic QMS (eQMS) systems with versioning, e-signatures, and access control are standard for scaling manufacturers.

Common pitfalls

•Failing to establish a clear, documented process for document review and approval can lead to non-conformance.
•Not maintaining traceability of document revisions can make it difficult to demonstrate compliance or investigate issues.
•Allowing unauthorized access to or modification of controlled documents creates significant regulatory risk.
•Inadequate training on document control procedures can result in incorrect document usage and QMS breaches.
•Retaining obsolete documents at points of use without clear segregation can lead to the use of incorrect procedures or specifications.

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.