The Risk Management File is the set of records and other documents that are produced by the risk management process for a medical device, providing traceability for each identified hazard from analysis through control and post-production information. Under ISO 14971:2019 it typically holds the risk management plan, risk analysis and evaluation, risk controls and their verification, the overall residual risk evaluation and the risk management report. It does not have to be a single document and can reference records stored elsewhere. Regulators and notified bodies use it to see how each risk was handled across the lifecycle.

Why it matters

The RMF is not a single document but a set of records assembled from the risk management process: risk management plan, risk analysis (hazards, hazardous situations, sequences of events), risk evaluation, risk control measures with verification of effectiveness, residual risk evaluation, overall residual risk analysis, risk management review, and production and post-production information. ISO 14971:2019 requires the RMF to be maintained for the lifetime of the device. Auditors expect direct traceability from each identified hazard to a control, verification of that control, and residual risk acceptance, with post-market data (complaints, CAPAs, field data) feeding back into the file.

Common pitfalls

•Treating the RMF as a premarket-only artifact. ISO 14971:2019 explicitly requires post-production updates; auditors check for a living, dated history.
•Missing traceability from hazard to control to verification. This is the single most common Notified Body observation on RMFs.
•Failing to document risk control option analysis. Clause 7.1 requires considering inherently safe design first, then protective measures, then information for safety.
•Not performing the overall residual risk evaluation. Clause 8 requires it as a separate, explicit step beyond individual residual risks.

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.