Wearables span consumer health (Apple Watch, Fitbit, Oura) and prescription/regulated devices (CGMs, mobile cardiac telemetry, Holter patches like iRhythm Zio, sleep apnea screening, neonatal monitoring). Some are SaMD or include software functions cleared by FDA. Medical wearables measure signals like heart rhythm, glucose or oxygen saturation and must meet FDA device requirements when they make medical claims. Consumer wellness devices with low-risk claims may fall outside FDA oversight. Accuracy across skin tones, battery life and data security are frequent concerns.

Why it matters

The line between wellness and medical is increasingly negotiated through De Novo and 510(k) pathways for specific functions (AFib detection, ECG, fall detection).

Common pitfalls

•Do not assume a device is a general wellness product without thoroughly evaluating its intended use and claims against regulatory guidance.
•Failing to involve regulatory affairs early in the design process can lead to significant delays and redesigns for wearable medical devices.
•Overlooking cybersecurity requirements for wearable medical devices can lead to data breaches and non-compliance with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA.
•Neglecting post-market surveillance for wearable medical devices can result in missed opportunities to identify and address safety or performance issues.
•Not conducting thorough risk management per ISO 14971:2019 for all functions, including software, can lead to inadequate control of hazards.

Sources

FDA digital health · FDA
MedTech Europe - Facts & Figures · MedTech Europe
MedTech Dive · MedTech Dive

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.