Per FD&C Act, labeling includes any written, printed, or graphic matter accompanying a medical device, encompassing the IFU, package labels, and patient information leaflets. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, labeling is broader than the label itself: it includes all written, printed or graphic material on or accompanying the device, such as IFUs, packaging, inserts and, in many cases, websites and promotional materials. False or misleading labeling makes a device misbranded. In the EU, labeling requirements are set in MDR Annex I, Section 23, and symbols are commonly drawn from ISO 15223-1.

Why it matters

Labeling errors are a leading cause of recalls and Form 483 citations. EU MDR adds harmonized symbols and electronic IFU rules.

Common pitfalls

•A common pitfall is assuming labeling only refers to the physical label on the device itself; it includes all accompanying information.
•Companies often fail to translate labeling accurately and appropriately for all target markets, leading to non-compliance.
•Inconsistent information across various labeling components (e.g., IFU, website, promotional materials) can lead to regulatory scrutiny.
•Overlooking the need for version control and proper document management for all labeling elements is a frequent mistake.
•Failing to validate electronic IFU systems for accessibility, readability, and security can result in regulatory issues.

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.