One of the biggest misconceptions in the medical device industry is that a Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) is merely a large document that must be completed before submission.
Why do CERs generate questions from certification bodies?
Under the EU MDR, that approach is no longer enough.
Clinical evaluation has evolved from a regulatory “deliverable” into one of the most heavily scrutinized parts of the entire conformity assessment process. In many EU MDR reviews, the real issue is not whether a company has a CER. It is whether the company developed a clear Clinical Evaluation Plan (CEP) and implemented it until it answered the question, “Do we have enough clinical data to write the CER?” The CER should then be written not only to follow the CEP strategy, but also to serve as a defensible, lifecycle-based clinical evidence record.
Experience suggests that once the CER is being written, the evidence may lead in directions that were not originally aligned with the CEP. That is common. Therefore, looking back at the original plan is critical to ensure the final CER still aligns with the final, revised CEP.
That difference is where many organizations first begin to fail.
What is a Clinical Evaluation under EU MDR? What does Article 61 say?
“Confirmation of conformity with relevant general safety and performance requirements set out in Annex I under the normal conditions of the intended use of the device, and the evaluation of the undesirable side effects and of the acceptability of the benefit-risk ratio referred to in Sections 1 and 8 of Annex I, shall be based on clinical data providing sufficient clinical evidence, including, where applicable, relevant data as referred to in Annex III [or PMS]. The manufacturer shall specify and justify the level of clinical evidence necessary to demonstrate conformity with the relevant general safety and performance requirements. That level of clinical evidence shall be appropriate in view of the characteristics of the device and its intended purpose. To that end, manufacturers shall plan, conduct, and document a clinical evaluation in accordance with this Article and Part A of Annex XIV.
Under EU MDR Article 61 and Annex XIV, manufacturers must demonstrate that their device achieves its intended clinical benefits while maintaining an acceptable benefit-risk profile throughout the product lifecycle.”
What does this mean in practical terms? It means clinical evaluation must:
- Demonstrate safety and performance
- Use sufficient clinical evidence
- Be continuously updated
- Align with risk management and Post-Market Surveillance (PMS)
The key phrase is “continuously updated.”
Many companies still approach clinical evaluation as a one-time submission exercise. Regulators and certification bodies increasingly view it as a “living system” tied directly to:
- PMS
- PMCF
- CAPA
- Complaint handling and vigilance reporting
- Risk management
- State-of-the-art review, meaning: “If your medical device were not on the market, what therapeutic options would exist today, and how would they compare to your medical device?”
When those systems are disconnected, the CER usually becomes vulnerable during review.
Why are so many Clinical Evaluation Reports failing under the EU MDR?
Many CER failures are predictable and are listed below:
- Weak literature search methodologies for the device, similar devices, and the state of the art
- Poor justification of equivalence
- Outdated clinical evidence
- Missing linkage to risk management
- Lack of PMCF integration
- Inconsistent intended use statements across documents
When you read the EU MDR, it is clear that the deeper issue is usually strategic. Many organizations still build CERs backward. Instead of asking, “What clinical evidence do we need to prove safety and performance?” they ask, “What evidence do we already have available?”
Those are very different regulatory strategies.
Why has equivalence become much harder under EU MDR?
One reason is that there is now a Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) guidance document, MDCG 2020-5, along with a detailed form to complete. The form goes into significant detail about the characteristics that need to be addressed for both your device and similar device(s), including:
- Technical characteristics
- Biological characteristics
- Clinical characteristics
Download the guidance here:
This is partly why equivalence, once the most common submission pathway, has become one of the least common unless the manufacturer owns the data from previous medical devices. In those cases, equivalence may be determined.
What do certification bodies actually look for in a CER?
Certification bodies and regulators evaluate more than the document itself. Weak CERs often feel fragmented:
- Risk files say one thing
- Labeling says another
- PMS data is disconnected from clinical evidence, risk, and labeling
- Clinical conclusions appear overly optimistic
- Product claims are not supported by credible clinical data
There needs to be a “golden thread” that seamlessly ties these areas, and others, together. Those inconsistencies are major review triggers.
Why state-of-the-art analysis is becoming a growing problem
Many organizations underestimate the importance of state-of-the-art analysis. From the perspective of a notified body or regulator, a CER built primarily on legacy data may now appear outdated, even if the device itself has not changed significantly.
Conclusion: Under EU MDR, evidence is now your product
In plain English, you cannot just say your device works. You have to prove it, and you have to keep proving it. Think of it this way: the EU MDR is not asking for your best guess or your most optimistic brochure copy. It is asking for evidence, the kind that holds up when a notified body auditor or reviewer is staring at your technical file over lukewarm coffee, tea, or water.
So plan it. Conduct it. Document it. And whatever you do, make sure your benefit-risk profile looks better over the years than it did when you started selling the device. Your patients, employees, and auditors will thank you.
Learn More with SGS Training
Want to know more? Visit SGS’s Training Academy:
