ACRP-MDP study materials
ACRP-MDP study resources

ACRP-MDP: Medical Device Clinical Research Core Knowledge Areas

ACRP-MDP · Work through your exam, one topic at a time.

All guide sections

Medical Device Clinical Research Core Knowledge Areas

What the exam expects you to know

Medical device trials differ from drug trials in ways that drive most of the questions. Devices are often iterative, modified during development, and evaluated for safety and performance rather than efficacy alone. Know the vocabulary: intended use (the general purpose for which the device is intended, per labeling) versus indications for use (the specific disease/condition, population, and anatomical site). Confusing these is a classic trap-intended use is broad; indications are narrow.

Understand the device risk classification logic (Class I–III in the US; Class I, IIa, IIb, III under EU MDR), and that higher-risk devices generally demand more rigorous clinical evidence. Know the clinical evaluation concept: a continuous process of appraising clinical data (literature, existing trials, or a new clinical investigation) to confirm safety and performance. A clinical investigation plan (CIP) is the device equivalent of a protocol.

Concepts to master

  • Substantial equivalence / equivalence pathways and when a clinical investigation is still required.
  • The sponsor–investigator–monitor relationship and the sponsor's ultimate responsibility for the investigation.
  • Investigational device accountability: shipping, storage, dispensing, returns, and destruction records.
  • Informed consent requirements, including when an emergency exception applies.
  • Adverse event and device deficiency reporting-distinguish a device deficiency (inadequacy in identity, quality, durability, reliability, safety, or performance) from an adverse event (harm to the subject).

Traps and a rule of thumb

Questions often blur "device malfunction" with "serious adverse event." A malfunction with no harm is a device deficiency, not an SAE, though it may still require reporting. Rule of thumb: ask who was harmed. If no one was harmed, it is a deficiency; if harm occurred, it is an adverse event-then assess seriousness. Also watch for questions conflating feasibility studies with pivotal studies; only the latter support the marketing application.

Worked example

A catheter fractures during use but is retrieved with no patient injury. Correct classification: device deficiency, not an SAE. It still must be documented and evaluated for reporting under the CIP and applicable regulations.