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.

    Clinical & Trials

    Performance Study (IVDR)

    In one line
    A study to establish or confirm analytical or clinical performance of an IVD, governed by IVDR Articles 57 to 77.
    Definition
    Article 2(42) of the IVDR defines a performance study as a study undertaken to establish or confirm the analytical or clinical performance of a device. Articles 57 to 77 and Annex XIII Part A Section 2 set out study design, sponsor obligations, ethics review, informed consent, and adverse-event reporting, with additional obligations for interventional studies and studies involving companion diagnostics.
    Why it matters
    Performance studies are the IVDR analogue of MDR clinical investigations but with categories tied to invasiveness of sampling and use of results in patient management. Interventional studies (Article 58(2)) require prior authorisation by Member States, similar to MDR clinical investigations.
    Common pitfalls
    • •Assuming every performance study follows the same authorisation pathway. Requirements depend on features such as invasive sampling, additional procedures, and use of results in patient management.
    • •Treating analytical performance alone as proof of clinical performance. Demonstrating reliable measurement does not necessarily establish how results relate to a clinical condition in the intended population.
    • •Treating MDR clinical investigation requirements or FDA clinical trial information as substitutes for IVDR requirements. An IVD performance study needs an assessment against the applicable IVDR provisions.
    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.