Clinical Evaluation Report (CER)

« Back to Glossary Index

What it is

Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) is the structured conclusion of a device’s clinical evaluation, demonstrating safety, performance, and benefit–risk for the stated intended purpose using all relevant clinical data. It is mandatory for CE marking and must be maintained throughout the lifecycle (MDR 2017/745 Art. 61; Annex XIV Part A–B).

Art. 61 • Annex XIVLifecycle evidenceBenefit–risk

Regulatory framework

  • MDR Article 61: Requires clinical evaluation for all devices; sets when new clinical investigations are needed and when justified alternatives (e.g., equivalence, well-established technologies) may apply (Art. 61(1), (3)–(6)).
  • Annex XIV Part A: Methods to plan, identify, appraise, and analyze clinical data; outputs include the Clinical Evaluation Plan (CEP) and CER.
  • Annex XIV Part B: Post-Market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF) planning, conduct, and reporting; PMCF is expected unless a robust, device-specific justification shows it is not necessary.
  • Related hooks: GSPRs (Annex I), technical documentation (Annex II–III), PMS/PSUR and vigilance (Arts. 83–92).

Key elements / What it covers

  • Intended purpose & claims: Indications, users, settings, and outcomes the evidence must support.
  • Evidence set: Clinical investigations, literature, real-world data/registries, and—if fully justified—equivalence data with access to underlying files (Annex XIV Part A §3).
  • Appraisal & weighting: Relevance, reliability, and robustness of each source; management of uncertainty.
  • Benefit–risk: Reasoned conclusions for each claim and population, with residual risks and risk controls aligned to Annex I.
  • Updates: Integration of PMS/PMCF signals; living document throughout the lifecycle.

Process — how it works

  • 1) Plan (CEP): Define scope, endpoints, acceptance criteria, literature strategy, appraisal tools, comparators, and PMCF trigger logic (Annex XIV Part A).
  • 2) Identify data: Gather internal/external clinical evidence, including legacy data if still relevant and adequate.
  • 3) Appraise & weight: Judge methodological quality; document rationales and exclusions.
  • 4) Analyze: Synthesize against intended purpose and GSPRs; address gaps and uncertainties.
  • 5) Conclude (CER): State benefit–risk and supported claims; define open questions and PMCF.
  • 6) Maintain: Run PMCF as planned or justify non-performance; update CER with PMS/PSUR and vigilance outcomes.

Common pitfalls

  • Equivalence claimed without full technical/biological/clinical matching and access to data (Annex XIV Part A §3).
  • Endpoints that do not reflect the labeled claims, users, or settings.
  • Literature reviews lacking transparent strategy, selection criteria, or quality appraisal.
  • Static CERs that ignore PMS/PMCF signals or fail to update benefit–risk and labeling.
  • Assuming PMCF is optional without a robust, device-specific justification.

Quick checks / Tips

  • Are claims precise, testable, and mapped to endpoints and success criteria in the CEP?
  • Does each data source have documented relevance, reliability, and robustness?
  • Is benefit–risk positive for every intended population and use setting?
  • If using equivalence, do you have evidence access and full 3-pillar matching?
  • Does the CER pull PMS/PMCF outputs into labeling, risk files, and the GSPR matrix?

FAQ

Is a CER required for every device?

Yes. Article 61 requires a clinical evaluation—and thus a CER—for all devices. The depth varies with risk, novelty, and claims.

Does a CER always need a new clinical investigation?

No. New investigations are needed when existing evidence is insufficient or when Article 61(4) applies without a valid exemption (e.g., well-established technologies under Art. 61(6)).

How often should we update the CER?

At planned intervals and when significant new data appear. Higher risk or novel devices typically warrant more frequent updates and PMCF.

What counts as “sufficient clinical evidence”?

A coherent body of relevant, reliable, and robust data that supports each claim and population, with uncertainties managed via PMS/PMCF and risk controls.

Who should author the CER?

Competent evaluators with clinical and methodological expertise, knowledgeable in the device type and MDR requirements; qualifications must be documented.