ISO 13485 §4.2.2 requires a Quality Manual that documents QMS scope, justifications for any exclusions, references to documented procedures, and a description of process interactions. The quality manual also outlines the structure of the documentation used in the QMS and is often the first document reviewed by auditors. ISO 13485 allows exclusions or non-applications, for example of design and development, only when justified and allowed by applicable regulations. Under the QMSR, FDA expects the quality manual as part of ISO 13485 conformance, which it previously addressed through the quality system record.

Why it matters

Often the first document an auditor opens; clarity and accuracy here set the tone for the rest of the audit.

Common pitfalls

•A common pitfall is treating the Quality Manual as a static document, failing to update it to reflect changes in the QMS or regulatory landscape.
•Another mistake is writing a Quality Manual that is too generic, lacking specific details about the manufacturer's unique processes and products.
•Manufacturers sometimes overlook the importance of linking the Quality Manual to other QMS documents, leading to an incoherent system.
•Failing to justify any exclusions from ISO 13485 requirements within the Quality Manual can lead to non-conformities during audits.
•An improperly organized Quality Manual can make it difficult for auditors to navigate, potentially delaying or complicating the audit process.

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.