Comparative Analysis of Medical Device Regulatory Frameworks Across Countries.

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Bunchai Chongmelaxme, Nargis Saharan, Kok Pim Kua
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Medical Device Regulatory Frameworks Across Countries.","authors":"Bunchai Chongmelaxme, Nargis Saharan, Kok Pim Kua","doi":"10.1016/j.vhri.2026.102143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Regulatory frameworks for medical devices are continually evolving to keep pace with technological innovation, aiming to ensure safety and efficacy. However, regulatory requirements differ substantially across countries, creating challenges for manufacturers, regulators, and timely patient access to medical technologies. This study aims to comparatively analyze medical device regulatory frameworks across the 12 member countries of the International Medical Device Regulators Forum, as well as in Pakistan and Thailand.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus from inception to September 2025, supplemented by data from official national regulatory authority websites. Studies were selected based on their examination of regulatory frameworks, including structural components, required documentation, and associated challenges and benefits. Content analysis was applied to synthesize findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 755 identified records, 22 studies and 14 official regulatory websites met inclusion criteria. Definitions and classification systems varied, with 12 countries using a 4-tier model and 2 using a 3-tier classification. ISO 13485 certification was widely required for quality management system, whereas ISO 14155 was commonly mandated for clinical investigations. Key registration documents included technical dossiers, clinical evaluation reports, quality management system compliance evidence, and labeling. Approval timelines ranged from 3 to 24 months. Common challenges included centralized approval processes, regulatory complexity, and language translation barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite harmonization efforts, significant variations in regulatory standards persist across countries. These differences may hinder timely and equitable access to medical devices. Greater alignment of regulatory practices could enhance global access to safe, effective, and innovative medical technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":23497,"journal":{"name":"Value in health regional issues","volume":" ","pages":"102143"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in health regional issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2026.102143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Regulatory frameworks for medical devices are continually evolving to keep pace with technological innovation, aiming to ensure safety and efficacy. However, regulatory requirements differ substantially across countries, creating challenges for manufacturers, regulators, and timely patient access to medical technologies. This study aims to comparatively analyze medical device regulatory frameworks across the 12 member countries of the International Medical Device Regulators Forum, as well as in Pakistan and Thailand.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus from inception to September 2025, supplemented by data from official national regulatory authority websites. Studies were selected based on their examination of regulatory frameworks, including structural components, required documentation, and associated challenges and benefits. Content analysis was applied to synthesize findings.

Results: Of 755 identified records, 22 studies and 14 official regulatory websites met inclusion criteria. Definitions and classification systems varied, with 12 countries using a 4-tier model and 2 using a 3-tier classification. ISO 13485 certification was widely required for quality management system, whereas ISO 14155 was commonly mandated for clinical investigations. Key registration documents included technical dossiers, clinical evaluation reports, quality management system compliance evidence, and labeling. Approval timelines ranged from 3 to 24 months. Common challenges included centralized approval processes, regulatory complexity, and language translation barriers.

Conclusion: Despite harmonization efforts, significant variations in regulatory standards persist across countries. These differences may hinder timely and equitable access to medical devices. Greater alignment of regulatory practices could enhance global access to safe, effective, and innovative medical technologies.

各国医疗器械监管框架的比较分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in health regional issues
Value in health regional issues Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书