PMDA conducts scientific reviews of marketing authorization applications and post-marketing safety for drugs and medical devices in Japan, working under the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). MHLW grants final approval under the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Act (PMD Act). Devices fall into Classes I to IV: lower-risk devices are often certified by registered certification bodies, while higher-risk devices are reviewed by PMDA. Foreign manufacturers must appoint a Marketing Authorization Holder in Japan and register their manufacturing sites.

Why it matters

Japan classifies devices into Classes I–IV. Higher-risk devices require Shonin approval; many Class II devices use third-party Ninsho certification. PMDA accepts MDSAP audits in lieu of QMS inspections for many manufacturers.

Common pitfalls

•A common misconception is that PMDA only reviews Shonin (higher-risk) applications; however, PMDA also oversees Ninsho (third-party certified) devices through audits and vigilance.
•Manufacturers might overlook that while MDSAP is accepted, specific Japanese QMS requirements, as outlined in the PMD Act, still apply and must be met.
•Failing to understand the nuances between Shonin and Ninsho pathways can lead to delays in market access for MedTech products in Japan.
•Assuming that PMDA's focus is solely on pre-market approval, neglecting the significant post-market surveillance and reporting obligations it enforces, is a critical error.

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.