Criterion Edge is often approached by clients with MDR Clinical Evaluation Reports (CERs) that require extensive revisions based upon Notified Body review and feedback. Addressing NB feedback costs your team time and effort and may threaten critical submission deadlines. However many of these issues might have been avoidable with thorough pre-planning, proper project scoping and asking the right questions from the beginning. In this “Ask the Expert” question-and-answer session, we will show you some of the most common issues our writing team encounters with clients who face these revisions and discuss how they can be avoided. Presented from the perspective of experienced medical writers, we hope to provide examples of how solid planning during your own writing process can help you avoid the most common missteps in your own CER or PER.
During this 45-minute session, come prepared with your questions for our experts to answer regarding your notified body review findings. Please submit them ahead of time while registering so we have ample time to answer them thoughtfully. Also, please be aware that answers will be limited to 3 minutes per question.
This forum will answer questions on a first come first serve basis, so please submit all your questions when you register for this event.
Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and teams who develop, write, review, or approve clinical evaluation reports for MDR submissions or performance evaluation reports for IVDR submissions.
Click here to watch the recording of this session.
Notified Bodies (NBs) across Europe along with global manufacturers are facing resource constraints. The cause? Additional requirements imposed by the new MDR/IVDR Regulations. Team-NB, the European notified body association, issued a position paper to express concerns about lack of resources and guidance to assist in meeting the certification deadlines.
The primary concern cited is the likely device shortage for patients. More complex and longer certification processes required under MDR/IVDR are influencing this shortage. In conjunction, the demands are too great for the small number of MDR/IVDR designated Notified Bodies (NBs). With only 25 NBs for MDR and 6 for IVDR, the demand outweighs supply. Compared with 51 NBs designated for MDD and 21 under the AIMDD/IVDD Directives, manufacturers are in a tough situation now compared to years prior.
Team-NB identified the following four primary contributing factors, summarized in our recent blog post here.
Do you have questions about how to identify meaningful safety and performance measures for the clinical evaluation? What are the best strategies for the verification of device safety and performance? Are you demonstrating that your safety and performance objectives are appropriate and clinically relevant? Do you know how to specify acceptance criteria that are used to determine the acceptability of benefit-risk?
This is a 45-minute Q&A session during which President Laurie Mitchell will answer questions like these and more. Submit your questions when you register for this forum. Please be aware that answers will be limited to 3 minutes per questions. This forum will operate on a first come first serve basis.
Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and teams who develop, write, review or approve Clinical Evaluation Reports for EU MDR submissions
Click here to watch the recording.
The newest regulations for medical devices, Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 and MEDDEV 2.7/1 revision 4, set high standards for confirming safety and performance according to the manufacturer’s Instructions for Use. Previously, regulations under the old MDR and MEDDEV were not as demanding. Also, manufacturers are not accustomed to the current systematic process of CER evaluations.
These relatively new requirements for clinical evaluation extend to manufacturers sending new products into the European market. Additionally, those that are already selling medical devices will have to follow these new requirements. Safety and performance are central components of the evidence-based evaluation process for obtaining and maintaining CE Marking for MDR 2017/745 and MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4. Consequently, medical device manufacturers felt the pressure to comply by May 2021.
Read more on this topic in our blog post, here.
Are you looking for strategies for the verification of device safety and performance in the clinical evaluation? Are you struggling to define device safety and performance objectives? During this 45-minute Q&A session, our President Laurie Mitchell answers questions regarding how to identify meaningful safety and performance endpoints. In addition, she discusses how to demonstrate safety and performance objectives are appropriate and clinically relevant as well as what acceptance criteria is and how to define it.
Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and regulatory writers who are tasked with the development, writing, review or approval of Clinical Evaluation Reports for EU MDR submission, or anyone interested in learning more about MDR requirements for CERs. If you attended our hour-long webinar on August 25, but we did not answer your questions we encourage you to attend to get your questions answered on this topic.
All medical devices selling in Europe must have a Clinical Evaluation Report (CER). Specific and measurable safety and performance endpoints are paramount for an acceptable CER. However, many small medical device manufacturers are struggling to adequately define and subsequently document measurable safety and performance endpoints, especially in the literature review, to support an evidence-based evaluation.
The newest regulations for medical devices, Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 and MEDDEV 2.7/1 revision 4, set high standards for confirming safety and performance according to the manufacturer’s Instructions for Use. Previously, regulations under the old MDR and MEDDEV were not as demanding. Also, manufacturers are not accustomed to the current systematic process of CER evaluations.
Read more on this topic in our recent blog post, Clearly Defining Measurable Safety and Performance Endpoints in Clinical Evaluation Reports (CER) is a Real Challenge for Medical Device Manufacturers.
Do you have questions about how to identify meaningful safety and performance measures for the clinical evaluation? What are the best strategies for the verification of device safety and performance? Are you demonstrating that your safety and performance objectives are appropriate and clinically relevant? Do you know how to specify acceptance criteria that are used to determine the acceptability of benefit-risk?
During this presentation, President Laurie Mitchell and Principal Medical Writer, Dr. Sarah Chavez, answer questions on how to identify meaningful safety and performance endpoints, ensure they are appropriate and clinically relevant, how to specify acceptance criteria ranges, and more.
Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and teams who develop, write, review or approve Clinical Evaluation or Performance Evaluation Reports for EU MDR or IVDR submissions
Click here to watch the recording!
The newest regulations for medical devices, Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 and MEDDEV 2.7/1 revision 4, set high standards for confirming safety and performance according to the manufacturer’s Instructions for Use. Previously, regulations under the old MDR and MEDDEV were not as demanding. Also, manufacturers are not accustomed to the current systematic process of CER evaluations.
These relatively new requirements for clinical evaluation extend to manufacturers sending new products into the European market. Additionally, those that are already selling medical devices will have to follow these new requirements. Safety and performance are central components of the evidence-based evaluation process for obtaining and maintaining CE Marking for MDR 2017/745 and MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4. Consequently, medical device manufacturers felt the pressure to comply by May 2021.
Read more on this topic in our blog post, here.
Do you have questions about how to generate, collect, analyze, and assess clinical data pertaining to your IVD or medical device? And what are the best practices for conducting literature searches? How do you effectively present your data in your clinical evaluation report or performance evaluation report?
During this 45-minute Q&A session, our President Laurie Mitchell is joined by Dr. Sarah Chavez to answer some commonly asked questions and give expert advice. Answers cover how to best collect and present data on similar (competitor) devices as well as data collection strategies for new products. In addition, there is discussion around best practices for and examples of appraising literature and clinical data. Also, clarification between safety & performance metrics and risks & benefits analyses is given, plus so much more.
Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and teams who develop, write, review or approve clinical evaluation reports or performance evaluation reports for EU MDR or IVDR submissions.
Every day, pharma and medical device companies need data from Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) to inform, direct, and help drive their internal processes and decisions. Of course, to comply with global regulatory requirements, clinical literature is also required. Conducting SLRs to search, screen, and extract data from published sources can present challenges to your team in terms of expertise (e.g., medical librarian), methodology, and resources. It takes trained people with the availability to screen, review, and analyze the literature.
Download our free white paper, Systematic Literature Review: How to Empower Data-Driven Decisions in Your Organization to read more on this topic.
You can also watch our webinar on this topic.
Our President Laurie Mitchell joins Jennifer Tetzlaff, Research Product Specialist with Evidence Partners, to talk to you about the following points:
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Read more about our privacy policy here.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
This website uses Google Tag Manager and Pardot's tracking features to collect information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages. Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
