Insights from expert panels on the EU clinical evaluation consultation procedure

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) under the EU Medical Device Regulation aims to strengthen and harmonize the assessment of high-risk medical devices. This review summarizes early insights from expert panels to support improved clinical evaluation practices. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS: This review analyses 34 expert panel opinions derived from 281 CECP submissions between April 2021 and December 2025. Statements from opinions were systematically extracted, de-duplicated, and grouped into thematic categories, with independent review and validation. The analysis focuses on common challenges found during the consultation procedure of the expert panels on the content of the clinical assessment in relation to clinical evidence, benefit - risk assessment, intended purpose alignment, and post-market clinical follow-up planning. RESULTS: Expert panel findings highlight recurrent issues in the sufficiency, consistency, and transparency of clinical evidence, underscoring the need for improved standardization and clearer guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Strengthening documentation quality and alignment across stakeholders will enhance the robustness, efficiency, and predictability of conformity assessments for high-risk medical devices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Expert Review of Medical Devices
Published
2026-07-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2026.2705491
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Insights from expert panels on the EU clinical evaluation consultation procedure

Per Kjærsgaard‐Andersen, Silvy da Rocha Dias, Miguel Antunes, Agnieszka Ciarka et al.
Expert Review of Medical Devices
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

Insights from expert panels on the EU clinical evaluation consultation procedure

Per Kjærsgaard‐Andersen, Silvy da Rocha Dias, Miguel Antunes, Agnieszka Ciarka, Sven Zenker, Iordanis Sidiropoulos, Hilde Bastaerts, V. Dietz, Vasileios Sakalis, Iana Simova, Raul Sousa, Cécile Henrot, Ernst Klar, Rob Nelissen, Francesca Romana Del Vecchio
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) under the EU Medical Device Regulation aims to strengthen and harmonize the assessment of high-risk medical devices. This review summarizes early insights from expert panels to support improved clinical evaluation practices. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS: This review analyses 34 expert panel opinions derived from 281 CECP submissions between April 2021 and December 2025. Statements from opinions were systematically extracted, de-duplicated, and grouped into thematic categories, with independent review and validation. The analysis focuses on common challenges found during the consultation procedure of the expert panels on the content of the clinical assessment in relation to clinical evidence, benefit - risk assessment, intended purpose alignment, and post-market clinical follow-up planning. RESULTS: Expert panel findings highlight recurrent issues in the sufficiency, consistency, and transparency of clinical evidence, underscoring the need for improved standardization and clearer guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Strengthening documentation quality and alignment across stakeholders will enhance the robustness, efficiency, and predictability of conformity assessments for high-risk medical devices.

Expert Review of Medical Devices
European Medicines Agency (NL), University Hospital Bonn (DE), Leiden University Medical Center (NL), University Medical Center (US), Vejle Sygehus (DK), Ippokrateio General Hospital of Thessaloniki (GR), Universitätsklinik Balgrist (CH), Center for Advancing Health (US), Guangdong 999 Brain Hospital (CN), KU Leuven (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.