Myths about the medical devices testing – Myth 2

As a company that specializes in medical device testing, we often encounter some common misconceptions and myths about the regulatory requirements and processes for obtaining medical device certificates from the European Union’s Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In this series of posts, we will debunk some of these myths and provide some facts and tips to help you navigate the complex and dynamic regulatory landscape.

MYTH #2.
For MDR and FDA any testing data from any third-party test lab is acceptable.

FACT:

MDR and FDA submissions have strict criteria and expectations for the quality, reliability, and validity of the testing data submitted by manufacturers. In recent years, the FDA has observed an alarming increase in submissions containing fraudulent, unreliable, or duplicated data generated by third-party test labs, especially from some facilities based in China and India. These submissions have resulted in the rejection of marketing authorization and the questioning of the data integrity of the entire file.
FDA requires manufacturers to carefully evaluate the third-party test labs they engage to conduct performance testing and to independently verify all testing results before submitting. Manufacturers are responsible for qualifying third-party test labs and ensuring that all information submitted to the regulators is truthful and accurate. The same applies to MDR. The above is very important in the light of following:
– In chapter B.4.5.2 of the latest ISO 10993-1, you can see the importance of ISO 17025 accreditation and GLP certification
– the latest FDA letter.
 👉 https://tiny.pl/d1nl4

TIP:
To avoid data integrity issues and regulatory delays, manufacturers should partner with third-party test labs that have been accredited, certified, or recognized by reputable organizations. The must-have is ISO 17025 accreditation and GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) certification.

See more

ISO 10993-1:2025: Enhanced Characterization, Clearer Risk Logic

The 2025 revision keeps biological evaluation firmly inside ISO 14971 risk management and across the full device life cycle. Your…

ISO 10993-1:2025: Risk Management Integration and Exposure Duration

ISO 10993-1:2025 embeds the biological evaluation within ISO 14971’s risk-management framework. The standard explicitly requires identifying biological hazards, estimating their…

Preparing for Biocompatibility Testing: Strategic Considerations for Medical Device Manufacturers

Biocompatibility testing is essential for every medical device, ensuring safety, regulatory approval, and market success. The process, however, can be…

In Vitro & In Vivo: Strategic Insights for Medical Device Leaders

Biocompatibility testing is not just a regulatory requirement—it is a cornerstone of medical device safety, market approval, and long-term trust….

Biocompatibility Requirements for Wearable Medical Devices: Unique Considerations

Wearable medical devices are transforming healthcare with continuous monitoring, real-time diagnostics, and improved patient engagement. However, their design introduces distinct…

Proactive Planning: Combining Biocompatibility with Other Preclinical Testing Needs

Biocompatibility testing is a vital part of preclinical evaluation, but it’s just one piece of the larger puzzle. Manufacturers often…