FDA Cleared vs FDA Approved: What 510(k) Really Proves

Published June 20, 2026  |  Last updated September 10, 2026

FDA cleared vs FDA approved is not a stylistic choice between two ways of saying the same thing. They describe different statutes, different evidence standards and different levels of assurance about whether a device works. Most devices on the United States market have never been approved by anyone. They were cleared, a narrower and cheaper regulatory finding, and the distinction shows up in recall data, in litigation and in reviewer comments.

Key Takeaways

• A 510(k) clearance is a finding of substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, not a finding about clinical benefit.
• Premarket approval (PMA) is the only pathway FDA describes as requiring “sufficient valid scientific evidence to assure that the device is safe and effective for its intended use(s).”
• Between 1987 and 2020, annual 510(k) clearances ranged from 2,804 to 5,762 (median 3,404) while novel PMA approvals ranged from 8 to 56 (median 32).
• Of 113 high-risk FDA device recalls from 2005 to 2009, 71% involved 510(k)-cleared devices and 19% PMA-approved devices.
• “FDA registered” carries no safety meaning: an entry in FDA’s registration database “does not denote approval, clearance or authorization of that facility or its medical devices.”

FDA Cleared vs FDA Approved: The Legal Difference in One Paragraph

Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires a manufacturer to notify FDA at least 90 days before marketing a device. FDA’s definition is worth reading slowly: “A 510(k) is a premarket submission made to FDA to demonstrate that the device to be marketed is as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device.” The operative comparison is not the device against a clinical endpoint. It is the device against another device. If FDA agrees, it issues a letter and the product may be sold. That letter is a clearance.

Premarket approval is a different animal. FDA describes PMA as “the FDA process of scientific and regulatory review to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Class III medical devices,” and states that “PMA approval is based on a determination by FDA that the PMA contains sufficient valid scientific evidence to assure that the device is safe and effective for its intended use(s).” FDA calls it “the most stringent type of device marketing application required by FDA.” That outcome is an approval.

Why the words are not interchangeable

A cleared device has been compared. An approved device has been evaluated. A cleared device may be excellent and backed by a large literature, but none of that is what the clearance letter attests to. Calling it “FDA approved” claims a level of agency scrutiny that never happened. That is the most common regulatory error we see in device manuscripts at Editverse, and it is checkable against FDA’s public databases in minutes.

What “FDA registered” actually means

Establishment registration and device listing tell FDA where devices are made and what is made there. FDA’s reminder page is explicit: “When a facility registers and lists its devices, the resulting entry in FDA’s registration and listing database does not denote approval, clearance or authorization of that facility or its medical devices.” The same page adds that “the FDA does not ‘certify’ devices” and “does not issue registration certificates to medical device facilities.” If a device’s strongest regulatory credential is registration, it has no premarket safety finding behind it at all.

How 510(k) Substantial Equivalence Actually Works

Substantial equivalence is a two-branch test, and both branches start from intended use. A device qualifies if it has the same intended use as the predicate and the same technological characteristics. It also qualifies with the same intended use but different technological characteristics, provided those differences do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness and the submission shows the device is as safe and effective as the predicate. That second branch is where the regulatory argument happens, because “different questions of safety and effectiveness” is a judgement call.

What a 510(k) does not require

A 510(k) does not require a randomised trial, a prospective clinical study or patient-reported outcomes. Bench testing, biocompatibility data, software validation and comparative specifications are frequently the whole evidence package. That is not a loophole, it is the design of the statute for moderate-risk products, but it means clearance is silent on clinical benefit.

The scale is easy to underestimate. A 2026 scoping review in Chest examined every new device FDA approved or cleared in pulmonary, sleep and critical care medicine between June 2014 and June 2024. Of 790 devices, 98% were cleared through 510(k), “indicating they were deemed similar to other products already on the market.” Approval in that field, the authors conclude, “largely depends on establishing equivalence to existing devices.”

The three pathways side by side

Where De Novo fits

De Novo exists because the 510(k) logic breaks down when there is nothing to compare against. FDA describes it as “a marketing pathway to classify novel medical devices for which general controls alone, or general and special controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the intended use, but for which there is no legally marketed predicate device.” The consequential part comes next: once granted, “the new device may now serve as a predicate device for 510(k) submissions of future devices of the same type.” Every De Novo grant plants a new root in the predicate tree. Aboy, Crespo and Stern note that moderate-risk devices constitute 99% of those FDA has regulated since it gained device authority, and that De Novo supports FDA’s effort to modernise 510(k) by promoting up-to-date predicates.

FDA Cleared vs FDA Approved by Device Class: I, II and III

Pathway follows class, and class follows risk. FDA’s consumer guidance puts roughly 47% of devices in Class I, 43% in Class II and 10% in Class III, and notes that the large majority of Class I devices are exempt from premarket review entirely. Class III is defined as devices that “support or sustain human life, are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or which present a potential, unreasonable risk of illness or injury.”

The mapping is not perfectly clean. Some Class III device types were regulated for years under 510(k) because of transitional provisions, and FDA has moved categories between classes over time. Look up the specific product code rather than infer the pathway from the class. If you are placing a device on the evidence hierarchy, the same caution governs any levels of evidence in clinical research judgement: the label on the box is not the strength of the study behind it.

What the Evidence Says About FDA Cleared vs FDA Approved Devices

This is where the topic stops being definitional and becomes empirical. A substantial peer-reviewed literature has asked whether the pathway predicts what happens to a device afterwards.

Recalls concentrate in the cleared pathway

The foundational study is Zuckerman, Brown and Nissen in Archives of Internal Medicine. Analysing FDA’s high-risk device recall list from 2005 through 2009, they found 113 recalls for problems FDA determined could cause serious health problems or death. Twenty-one (19%) had been approved through PMA, 80 (71%) cleared through 510(k), and eight (7%) exempt from FDA review altogether.

The pattern has held across specialties and a further decade of data. Day and colleagues, in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, examined clearances and approvals from 1992 to 2012 and recalls from 2002 to 2012: among the top twenty recalling companies, 17.8% of 510(k)-cleared devices were recalled against 1.6% of PMA-approved devices, making cleared devices 11.5 times more likely to be recalled. In otolaryngology, Talati and colleagues found 120 recall events across 42 unique 510(k)-cleared devices against 25 events across five PMA devices, an odds ratio of 3.67 (95% CI 2.38 to 5.88, P < .0001). Our free odds ratio and relative risk calculator shows how a ratio of that size behaves against different baseline risks, and the distinction between relative risk, attributable risk and odds ratios matters for how you word the finding.

The most detailed recent analysis is See and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine. Across 2013 to 2022 they identified 137 Class I recall events affecting 157 unique cardiovascular devices, 112 (71.3%) of them 510(k) devices and 45 (28.7%) PMA devices, with recalls affecting a median of 7,649 units. Only 30 (19.1%) had undergone premarket clinical testing, and the split is the number to remember: 7 of the 112 510(k) devices (6.2%) versus 17 of 20 PMA devices (85.0%). Then the sentence that should end any argument about postmarket safety nets: “No 510(k) devices were subject to postmarket surveillance.”

Approved is not the same as heavily evidenced

The corrective to a simple “cleared bad, approved good” reading is that the approved pathway also rests on thinner evidence than most researchers assume. Dhruva, Bero and Redberg reviewed 78 summaries of safety and effectiveness data supporting PMAs for high-risk cardiovascular devices between 2000 and 2007. Of the 123 supporting studies, 33 (27%) were randomised and 17 (14%) blinded; 51 of 78 PMAs (65%) rested on a single study; and of 213 primary endpoints, 187 (88%) were surrogate measures. Their conclusion: premarket approval “is often based on studies that lack adequate strength and may be prone to bias.”

Nearly two decades later the picture has not transformed. Mooghali and colleagues, in JAMA Health Forum in 2026, reviewed 193 high-risk therapeutic devices approved through PMA between 2014 and 2023. As of July 2025, 68 (35.2%) had at least one serious recall, at a median of 2.6 years from approval, and 20 (10.4%) at least one Class I recall. Class I recalls varied by pivotal study design: 33.3% for single-arm studies with no controls, 12.4% for single-arm with non-concurrent controls, 6.3% for multiple-arm with concurrent controls.

Clearance often precedes the first published study

Marcus and colleagues, in the BMJ, searched PubMed for the first clinical study of a new device published between 2000 and 2004, then looked up the regulatory record. Of 218 studies, 99 devices (45%) eventually received clearance or approval, 78 (79%) by 510(k). Critically, 43 of the 99 (43%) were cleared or approved before the first clinical study on them was published.

Predicate Chains and Predicate Creep: How Equivalence Drifts

The structural criticism of 510(k) is not that any single equivalence finding is unreasonable. It is that equivalence is transitive in practice but not in engineering. Device B is cleared against device A, device C against device B; ten links later device K may share very little with device A, yet the chain of individually defensible steps is unbroken.

Zhu and colleagues built the ancestral network for shoulder arthroplasty in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. Evaluating all 476 shoulder devices cleared through 510(k) since 1976, they found individual devices with between 0 and 313 descendants, and 80 of the 476 (16.8%) had since been recalled. Among the 29 most recently cleared devices in their window (July 2020 to July 2021), 16 (55.2%) claimed predicates subsequently withdrawn from the market because of design-related failures. A predicate does not stop being a predicate when it fails.

Lefkovich and Rothenberg formalised the mechanism in PLOS ONE, defining predicate creep as “a cycle of technology change through repeated clearance of devices based on predicates with slightly different technological characteristics, such as materials and power sources, or have indications for different anatomical sites,” and reported evidence of it in the Intuitive Surgical da Vinci Si robotic system. Pai mapped the same terrain at scale, scraping roughly 78,000 device summaries from FDA’s 510(k) database; substantial equivalence data from 2003 to 2020 showed the standard “has not changed significantly.”

The lineage problem appears in newer categories too. Tracing FDA-authorised software as a medical device in mental health, Herpertz and colleagues report that many 510(k)-cleared devices “lacked direct evidence of effectiveness, relying solely on equivalence to predicate devices.” Almarie and Fregni, analysing neuromodulation devices cleared between 1996 and 2024, found 30% of related clearances included clinical data, most rested on a single predicate, and every recalled device in their sample had been cleared without clinical data.

Design drift is not confined to the cleared pathway. Samuel, Rathi, Grauer and Ross identified all 70 original orthopaedic devices approved through PMA between 1982 and 2014: each underwent a median of 6.5 postmarket changes, and of 765 total changes, 172 (22%) altered device design or components. The marketed device drifts from the version that was tested.

After Clearance: MAUDE, Recalls and the Limits of Passive Surveillance

Once a device is on the market, the primary public signal is adverse-event reporting. Manufacturers, importers and device user facilities must file medical device reports with FDA when a device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or malfunctioned in a way likely to do so if repeated; health care professionals and patients may report voluntarily. Those reports populate the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database, MAUDE.

MAUDE is the correct database for device-failure questions, and consumer-product injury surveillance systems are not. A system such as the NEISS record built from an emergency room visit is designed around consumer products and holds no device-failure reports, recall classifications or litigation data. Choosing the wrong database at protocol stage is an expensive way to lose a year, which is why we wrote a guide to which health database your study should use, and a companion piece on how device failure investigations are actually structured.

What FDA itself says about MAUDE

FDA publishes a candid limitations statement that any manuscript using MAUDE should quote. FDA writes: “MDR data is not intended to be used either to evaluate rates of adverse events, evaluate a change in event rates over time, or to compare adverse event occurrence rates across devices.” It continues: “The incidence, prevalence, or cause of an event cannot be determined from this reporting system alone due to under-reporting of events, inaccuracies in reports, lack of verification that the device caused the reported event, and lack of information about frequency of device use.”

There is no denominator in MAUDE. That single fact invalidates most rate calculations run on it, and it is why MAUDE studies must be framed as descriptive characterisations of reported events rather than incidence estimates, exactly as for any observational real-world data source with known limitations.

How large the underreporting actually is

POTTER-AF 3 quantifies this cleanly by comparing MAUDE against an independent registry for the same rare event over the same period. Tilz and colleagues examined oesophageal fistula after atrial fibrillation ablation between August 2009 and August 2019: MAUDE contained 47 patients, the invitation-based POTTER-AF registry 81, and the diagnostic method was reported in 38.3% of MAUDE cases against 98.8% in the registry. Fewer cases appeared in the mandatory database than in a voluntary study, and “the data quality in the MAUDE database was significantly poorer.”

Recall classes are not device classes

A recurring confusion in device manuscripts is that a Class I recall and a Class I device mean opposite things about risk. FDA defines a Class I recall as “a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.” Class II is where use “may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote,” and Class III where use “is not likely to cause adverse health consequences.” A market withdrawal “occurs when a product has a minor violation that would not be subject to FDA legal action.” So a Class I device is the lowest-risk device category while a Class I recall is the highest-severity recall category, and writing “Class I” without saying which taxonomy you mean will draw a reviewer query every time.

Absolute rates put this in perspective. DeRuyter and colleagues followed 904 hip and knee arthroplasty devices cleared through 510(k) between 2008 and 2018 and found a hazard of recall by 10 years of approximately 24%. Dhawan and colleagues, matching 510(k) clearances from 2008 to 2023 against the recall database, report a recall rate of 11.4% across 45,182 devices. Damkjær and colleagues, reviewing 139 empirical studies published between 2003 and 2024, found they “predominantly reported that the available clinical evidence for medical device approval was considered inadequate.”

Writing About FDA Cleared vs FDA Approved Devices in a Manuscript

Across the device manuscripts that come through Editverse the same five errors recur, and all five are avoidable in about twenty minutes of database checking. This is the house checklist we run before a device paper goes out.

1. Verify the pathway, do not infer it. Search the device by name and manufacturer in FDA’s 510(k) and PMA databases and record the K number or P number in your supplementary material. If it appears in the 510(k) database, the correct verb is “cleared,” full stop.
2. Match the verb to the pathway every time. Cleared for 510(k), approved for PMA, granted then classified for De Novo. “Authorised” is a serviceable umbrella when a sentence spans devices with different histories, and far better than picking the flattering one.
3. Name the indication, not just the device. Clearances and approvals are for specific intended uses. A device cleared for one anatomical site or population is not cleared for another, and off-label use in your cohort is a limitation to state rather than let a reviewer find.
4. Never compute a rate from MAUDE. Report counts, describe patterns, quote FDA’s limitation language and say explicitly that no denominator exists. An incidence figure needs a registry or an administrative dataset, not a spontaneous reporting system.
5. Distinguish recall class from device class in the first sentence you use either. Then keep the two taxonomies visually separated in tables.

Two further points of craft. If you report on devices cleared without clinical data, the honest framing is that no clinical evidence was required, not that the device was proven unsafe. And if you plan a comparative analysis of recall outcomes by pathway, work out the detectable effect before you extract anything, because subgroup counts collapse fast once you stratify by specialty and recall class; our guide to whether you have the power to detect it covers the calculation. The write-up then reports cleanly against the STROBE checklist for observational studies. If your question runs upstream into the testing that should have caught a failure, our piece on the testing standards behind product safety requirements covers that ground.

Tools and Resources for Device Regulatory Research

FDA’s device databases are free, public and searchable without registration: 510(k) premarket notification, PMA, De Novo, Medical Device Recalls and MAUDE. Between them they settle the pathway, the date, the predicate, the indication and the recall history of nearly any device marketed in the United States since 1976. For the analysis and reporting layer, the following Editverse tools are free to use.

Professional Services for Device and Registry Studies

Most device papers that fail do so for reasons visible before extraction begins: the question is already answered, the variables do not exist across the years the design needs, or the analytic sample cannot support the estimate once stratified. These three engagements catch that early rather than after the work is done.

If you already hold your extract and only need the statistics run and documented to journal standard, our analysis-only Just Data Service covers that. Everything above is listed under Registry and Real-World Data Studies.

Conclusion: What FDA Clearance Does and Does Not Guarantee

FDA clearance guarantees that a device is substantially equivalent to something already sold in the United States. That is a real regulatory finding, but it is not a finding about whether the device benefits patients, and treating it as one is the error this literature documents.

The numbers are consistent across twenty years and many specialties. Around 71% of high-risk recalls in the 2005 to 2009 window, and 71.3% of Class I cardiovascular recalls in the 2013 to 2022 window, involved 510(k)-cleared devices. Only 6.2% of the cleared cardiovascular devices with Class I recalls had undergone premarket clinical testing, and none was subject to postmarket surveillance. Approval is not a guarantee either: more than a third of high-risk PMA devices approved between 2014 and 2023 had a serious recall within a median of 2.6 years.

The practical consequence for a researcher is small and specific. Look up the pathway. Use the verb the pathway earns. State the indication. Do not compute rates from a spontaneous reporting system.

This article provides informational analysis of publicly available FDA records and peer-reviewed literature. It does not constitute medical, regulatory or legal advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between FDA cleared and FDA approved?

“FDA cleared” means FDA determined a device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate under the 510(k) pathway. “FDA approved” means FDA determined, under premarket approval, that there is sufficient valid scientific evidence that the device is safe and effective for its intended use. Clearance is a comparison to another product; approval is an evaluation of evidence.

Does FDA clearance mean a device was tested in patients?

Not necessarily. A 510(k) may rest entirely on bench testing, biocompatibility data and comparative specifications. Among Class I cardiovascular recalls between 2013 and 2022, only 7 of the 112 recalled 510(k) devices (6.2%) had undergone premarket clinical testing, against 17 of 20 PMA devices (85.0%).

What does “FDA registered” mean?

It means the manufacturer completed establishment registration and device listing so FDA knows where the device is made. FDA states that a registration and listing entry “does not denote approval, clearance or authorization of that facility or its medical devices,” and that FDA does not certify devices or issue registration certificates.

Is a 510(k) cleared device less safe than a PMA approved device?

Recall data consistently show higher recall rates for cleared devices: 17.8% of 510(k)-cleared devices against 1.6% of PMA-approved devices in one orthopaedic sample, and an odds ratio of 3.67 in otolaryngology. But approval is no guarantee either, since 35.2% of high-risk PMA devices approved between 2014 and 2023 had at least one serious recall.

What is predicate creep?

A cycle of technology change through repeated clearance of devices based on predicates with slightly different technological characteristics, such as materials, power sources, or indications for different anatomical sites. Over many generations a marketed device can differ substantially from the original predicate while every individual step remains defensible.

Can I use the MAUDE database to calculate an adverse event rate?

No. FDA states that its medical device report data “is not intended to be used either to evaluate rates of adverse events, evaluate a change in event rates over time, or to compare adverse event occurrence rates across devices,” because of under-reporting, inaccuracies and no information on how often devices are used. MAUDE has no denominator.

How long does FDA take to review a 510(k), De Novo or PMA?

FDA states that a substantial equivalence determination “is usually made within 90 days” and that submissions must be made at least 90 days before marketing. For De Novo requests, FDA’s stated goal under MDUFA IV is 150 review days. FDA describes PMA as the most stringent type of device marketing application it requires.

References

1. Zuckerman DM, Brown P, Nissen SE. Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(11):1006-11. PMID: 21321283. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.30
2. Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. FDA regulation and approval of medical devices: 1976-2020. JAMA. 2021;326(5):420-432. PMID: 34342614. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.11171
3. See C, Mooghali M, Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Krumholz HM, Kadakia KT. Class I recalls of cardiovascular devices between 2013 and 2022: a cross-sectional analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(11):1499-1508. PMID: 39284187. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-24-00724
4. Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF. Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009;302(24):2679-2685. PMID: 20040556. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1899
5. Mooghali M, Arshad F, Rathi VK, Kadakia KT, Everhart AO, Ross JS, Dhruva SS. Premarket clinical evidence strength and recalls of high-risk therapeutic medical devices. JAMA Health Forum. 2026;7(8):e262626. PMID: 42566203. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.2626
6. Marcus HJ, Payne CJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Marcus AP, Yang GZ, Darzi A, Nandi D. Regulatory approval of new medical devices: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2016;353:i2587. PMID: 27207165. doi:10.1136/bmj.i2587
7. Day CS, Park DJ, Rozenshteyn FS, Owusu-Sarpong N, Gonzalez A. Analysis of FDA-approved orthopaedic devices and their recalls. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(6):517-524. PMID: 26984921. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.00286
8. Talati IA, Parsa KM, Gao WZ. Recalls of moderate- and high-risk otolaryngologic devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2003-2019. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;167(5):832-838. PMID: 35290135. doi:10.1177/01945998221085166
9. Zhu A, Ying X, Carey EG, Pean CA, Premkumar A, Fu MC, Taylor SA. Shoulder arthroplasty device clearance: an ancestral network analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023;32(3):671-676. PMID: 36279987. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2022.09.017
10. Lefkovich C, Rothenberg S. Identification of predicate creep under the 510(k) process: a case study of a robotic surgical device. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0283442. PMID: 36976820. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283442
11. Pai DB. Mapping the genealogy of medical device predicates in the United States. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0258153. PMID: 34618861. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258153
12. Samuel AM, Rathi VK, Grauer JN, Ross JS. How do orthopaedic devices change after their initial FDA premarket approval? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(4):1053-1068. PMID: 26584802. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4634-x
13. DeRuyter MT, Mansy LN, Krumme JW, Cheng AL, Dubin JR, Cil A. Risk of recall for total joint arthroplasty devices over 10 years. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(8):1444-1448. PMID: 36773660. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2023.01.068
14. Tilz RR, Pürerfellner H, Kuck KH, Merino JL, Schmidt V, Vogler J, et al. Underreporting of complications following AF ablation: comparison of the manufacturer and user facility device experience FDA database and a voluntary invitation-based registry: the POTTER-AF 3 study. Heart Rhythm. 2025;22(6):1472-1479. PMID: 39353499. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.09.060
15. Gardner JT, Busam JA, Shah ED. Clinical evidence to support US Food and Drug Administration review of new medical technology in pulmonary, sleep, and critical care medicine between 2014 and 2024: a scoping review to support adoption in practice. Chest. 2026;169(4):1051-1061. PMID: 41429289. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2025.12.012
16. Aboy M, Crespo C, Stern A. Beyond the 510(k): the regulation of novel moderate-risk medical devices, intellectual property considerations, and innovation incentives in the FDA’s De Novo pathway. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7(1):29. PMID: 38332182. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01021-y
17. Herpertz J, Stern AD, Opel N, Reininghaus U, Torous J. FDA-authorized software as a medical device in mental health: a perspective on evidence, device lineage, and regulatory challenges. NPJ Ment Health Res. 2025;4(1):62. PMID: 41298848. doi:10.1038/s44184-025-00174-2
18. Almarie B, Fregni F. Evaluation of clinical data and regulatory submission characteristics for neuromodulation devices approved via the 510(k) pathway (1996-2024). Expert Rev Med Devices. 2025;22(7):739-746. PMID: 40420386. doi:10.1080/17434440.2025.2508869
19. Dhawan R, Boric A, Shauly O, Marxen T, Om A, Brooks K, García Nores G, Losken A. Risk of recall among plastic surgery devices cleared through the FDA 510(k) pathway. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2026;8:ojag126. PMID: 42422336. doi:10.1093/asjof/ojag126
20. Damkjær M, Elkjær M, Hróbjartsson A, Schroll JB. Scoping review on regulation, implementation and postmarket surveillance of medical devices. PLoS One. 2025;20(5):e0325250. PMID: 40445965. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325250
21. US Food and Drug Administration. Premarket Notification 510(k). Accessed 9 September 2026. (No PubMed record.)
22. US Food and Drug Administration. Premarket Approval (PMA). Accessed 9 September 2026. (No PubMed record.)
23. US Food and Drug Administration. De Novo Classification Request. Accessed 9 September 2026. (No PubMed record.)
24. US Food and Drug Administration. About the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database. Accessed 9 September 2026. (No PubMed record.)
25. US Food and Drug Administration. Recalls Background and Definitions. Accessed 9 September 2026. (No PubMed record.)
26. US Food and Drug Administration. Important Reminders about Registration and Listing. Accessed 9 September 2026. (No PubMed record.)
27. US Food and Drug Administration. Learn if a Medical Device Has Been Cleared by FDA for Marketing. Accessed 9 September 2026. (No PubMed record.)