GCP is an international ethical and scientific quality standard for clinical investigations. ICH E6(R3) and ISO 14155 (devices) define expectations for protocol, monitoring, data integrity, and subject protection. GCP for device trials is set out in ISO 14155 and, in the US, by FDA regulations on IDEs, IRBs and informed consent. Commercial teams must keep sales activity separate from trial conduct. Sponsor monitoring, data integrity and investigator training are central requirements.

Why it matters

GCP compliance is verified during sponsor and investigator-site inspections (FDA BIMO, EMA GCP). Findings can invalidate trial data.

Common pitfalls

•Failing to adequately document investigational site monitoring visits can lead to questions about data integrity and subject safety.
•Using an outdated or unapproved version of the clinical investigation plan invalidates trial conduct and data.
•Not ensuring that all research personnel are qualified and adequately trained for their assigned tasks is a common non-compliance.
•Inadequate informed consent processes, such as missing signatures or dates, can compromise ethical standards and data validity.
•Failure to report adverse events promptly and accurately to regulatory authorities and ethics committees is a serious violation of GCP.

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.