Disclaimer: This site aggregates publicly available data from official government sources (FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, SEC EDGAR, NMPA) for general reference only. It does NOT constitute medical advice, diagnosis, treatment recommendations, or investment advice.

PubMed

Identification of predicate creep under the 510(k) process: A case study of a robotic surgical device.

PMID: 36976820 · 2023

JournalPloS one
Year2023
PMID36976820

Abstract

The FDA's 510(k) process for medical devices is based on "substantial equivalence" to devices clearedpre-1976 or legally marketed thereafter, known as predicate devices. In the last decade, several high-profile device recalls have drawn attention to this regulatory clearance process and researchers have raised questions about the validity of the 510(k) process as a broad clearance mechanism. One of the issues raised is the risk of predicate creep, a cycle of technology change through repeated cl

Official Source

View on PubMed →

Data sourced from PubMed / NCBI. For the full text and most current information, always refer to the official record.