Under the EU MDR, clinical evaluation is considered a continuous process. This means that the Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) should be reviewed and updated throughout the lifetime of the device, taking into account new clinical data and relevant changes. The key considerations are when an update is needed, how frequently the CER should be reviewed, and which developments or findings may trigger an update.
MDR Annex XIV, Part A states that the clinical evaluation and its documentation must be updated with data obtained from post-market surveillance. It also links directly to the obligation to conduct PMCF, the results of which feed back into the CER on an ongoing basis.
In plain language: your PMCF findings are not just data to be collected. They are mandatory inputs to your CER. A CER that has not been updated with current PMCF data is a non-compliant CER.
Beyond the periodic update cycle, specific events should trigger an immediate CER review:
Device Changes
New Clinical Evidence
Post-Market Signals
Regulatory and Guidance Changes
Some manufacturers wait for their Notified Body’s surveillance audit or renewal cycle to update their CER. This is a high-risk strategy. If a post-market signal emerged between updates and you did not act on it, the absence of an updated CER becomes evidence of a systemic failure.
The MDR’s continuous evaluation requirement exists for patient safety reasons. Manufacturers who internalize this — rather than treating it as a documentation burden — are better positioned both regulatorily and commercially. While MDR does not prescribe fixed update intervals, industry best practice and Notified Body expectations broadly align as follows:
| Risk Classification | Recommended Update Frequencies |
|
Class III and Implantable devices |
Annual CER review as a baseline, with event-triggered updates in between |
|
Class IIb devices |
Review at least every two years, or sooner if triggered by PMCF findings or post-market signals |
|
Class IIa devices |
Review every two to three years, with continuous PMS monitoring to identify triggers |
|
Class I devices (with measuring function or sterility) |
At a minimum upon any significant change; continuous PMS monitoring required |
These are starting points. Your specific device’s risk profile, complexity, novelty, and available evidence base may require a more frequent update cycle.
The most effective approach to CER maintenance is to embed it within your Quality Management System (QMS) as a scheduled, documented activity, not a reactive response to regulatory pressure.
A robust CER lifecycle management process includes:
Regulatory bodies don’t just look at the content of your CER, they look at the version history. A CER that hasn’t been touched in three years raises immediate questions about whether your PMCF programme is functioning.
Use this as a starting point for your CER lifecycle review:
If your organization is navigating CER development, remediation, or ongoing lifecycle management under MDR, our regulatory team is ready to help. Reach out to discuss how we can support your clinical evaluation strategy.
This was the last blog of our CEP/CER Support series. Read the previous blogs in the series: