IVD Essential Requirements Checklist: Transitioning to IVDR GSPRs

The shift from the In Vitro Diagnostic Directive (IVDD 98/79/EC) to the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR EU 2017/746) represents a fundamental overhaul of how technical files are structured. Under the legacy Directive, manufacturers relied on an Essential Requirements Checklist to demonstrate safety and performance. Under the IVDR, this has been completely replaced by the General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) found in Annex I. If you are updating a legacy device technical file or migrating a quality management system, you cannot simply copy and paste your old compliance arguments. The GSPRs require a much higher degree of clinical evidence, lifecycle risk tracking, and technical specificity.
Illustration of an IVD Essential Requirements Checklist showing the transition from the IVDD Essential Requirements to the IVDR General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) for in vitro diagnostic medical devices.

Updated: 26th May 2026

Reviewed by: Eleanor Shackleton BSc

The Big Shift: Essential Requirements vs. GSPRs

While the core philosophy remains the same—proving your IVD is safe and performs as intended—the GSPRs expand drastically on what is required. The legacy IVD Directive split its Essential Requirements into two sections (General Requirements and Design/Manufacturing Requirements) across a relatively compact list.

The IVDR Annex I expands this into three distinct chapters spanning 20 comprehensive requirements, many containing highly detailed sub-clauses:

  • Chapter I: General Requirements (Risk management, life-cycle safety, and elimination of risks).

  • Chapter II: Requirements Regarding Performance, Design, and Manufacture (Chemical, physical, biological properties, sterilisation, software, and measuring capabilities).

  • Chapter III: Requirements Regarding Information Supplied with the Device (Labelling and Instructions for Use).

To successfully update your old checklist, you must perform a gap analysis across several core technical categories.

Key Gap Areas When Transitioning Your IVD Checklist

1. Continuous, Iterative Risk Management

Under the old Directive, risk assessment was often treated as a point-in-time exercise completed during design closure. The IVDR changes this completely.

In your updated checklist, your risk management arguments must prove that you operate a continuous, life-cycle process integrated directly with your Quality Management System (QMS). Risks must be reduced “as far as possible” without compromising the benefit-risk ratio, and you must account for predictable misuse throughout the entire expected lifespan of the IVD.

2. Elevated Performance Evaluation and Clinical Evidence

The old Essential Requirements accepted high-level performance data. Under the IVDR, your GSPR arguments must be backed by a formal Performance Evaluation Report (PER).

You must explicitly separate and provide objective evidence for:

  • Scientific Validity: The association of an analyte with a clinical condition.

  • Analytical Performance: The ability of the device to correctly detect or measure a specific analyte (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, limits of detection).

  • Clinical Performance: The ability of the device to yield results that are correlated with a target clinical condition or a physiological/pathological state in the intended population.

3. Software and Cybersecurity (SaMD)

If your IVD incorporates software, or is a standalone Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), the legacy Directive gave very little guidance. The IVDR addresses this head-on in Chapter II.

Your updated checklist must include robust compliance verification for software life-cycle processes (validation, verification, and configuration management) alongside clear arguments for IT security, cybersecurity protections, and compatibility with mobile platforms or hardware environments.

4. Self-Testing and Near-Patient Testing Nuances

For manufacturers of home testing or point-of-care devices, the technical file burden has risen dramatically. The GSPRs dictate that your design verification must prove the device can be handled easily and safely by the intended lay user at every step.

If you are developing or selling self-testing products, read our specific Home Testing Kits Regulations & IVDR Compliance Guide for a deeper breakdown of layperson validation requirements.

5. Rigorous Labelling and IFU Requirements (Chapter III)

Chapter III of the GSPRs introduced highly prescriptive rules for information supplied with the device. Your updated checklist must cross-reference and verify:

  • The presence of the Unique Device Identification (UDI) carrier on the labelling.

  • Explicit declarations regarding whether the device is for professional use, near-patient testing, or self-testing.

  • Electronic Instructions for Use (eIFU) formatting standards and web availability.

Infographic showing how to transition an IVD Essential Requirements Checklist from the IVDD Essential Requirements to the IVDR General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs), including gap analysis, technical documentation updates, performance evaluation and ongoing compliance.

Key Differences Between the IVDD Essential Requirements and the IVDR GSPRs

The transition from the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Directive (98/79/EC) to Regulation (EU) 2017/746 represents far more than a change in terminology. While both frameworks share the common objective of ensuring safe and effective in vitro diagnostic medical devices, the IVDR introduces significantly more detailed requirements, stronger regulatory oversight and a lifecycle approach to compliance. The table below highlights some of the most important differences manufacturers should consider when updating an existing Essential Requirements Checklist to meet the General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs).

IVDD (Directive 98/79/EC)IVDR (Regulation (EU) 2017/746)What This Means for Manufacturers
Essential Requirements (Appendix I)General Safety and Performance Requirements (Annex I)Existing Essential Requirements Checklists should be reviewed and updated to align with the IVDR GSPRs.
Limited risk-based classificationNew risk-based classification system (Classes A, B, C and D)Many devices now require Notified Body involvement that was not previously required.
Many devices could be self-declaredMost Class B, C and D devices require Notified Body assessmentManufacturers should plan certification activities well in advance due to increased regulatory oversight.
Limited performance evidence requirementsScientific validity, analytical performance and clinical performance are requiredManufacturers must generate and maintain more comprehensive evidence supporting device performance.
Simpler technical documentationExpanded technical documentation requirements under Annex II and IIITechnical files must contain more detailed information and remain up to date throughout the device lifecycle.
No Unique Device Identification (UDI) systemUDI and improved traceability requirementsDevices must be uniquely identified to improve traceability and support market surveillance.
Limited post-market surveillance requirementsComprehensive post-market surveillance and vigilance systemManufacturers must actively monitor device performance, investigate complaints and report serious incidents where required.
Minimal lifecycle oversightContinuous lifecycle complianceCompliance is no longer limited to CE marking but extends throughout the entire commercial lifecycle of the device.
Less prescriptive quality management expectationsStrong emphasis on quality management systemsA robust Quality Management System, typically aligned with ISO 13485, supports ongoing compliance with the IVDR.

Step-by-Step: How to Upgrade Your Technical Checklist

To update your legacy document into an audit-ready IVDR GSPR Checklist, follow this practical workflow:

  1. Map the GSPRs to Your Device: Review Annex I of EU 2017/746 and determine which requirements are “Applicable” or “Not Applicable” to your specific IVD. Every single “Not Applicable” designation must have a thoroughly documented justification.

  2. Perform a Documentation Gap Analysis: Look at your old Essential Requirements list. Where you referenced a single validation report previously, identify whether you now need a comprehensive Clinical Performance study or updated stability testing data.

  3. Align with Harmonised Standards: Reference state-of-the-art standards (such as EN ISO 14971 for risk management and EN ISO 13485 for quality systems) within your checklist columns to justify your compliance methods.

  4. Link Directly to Precise Evidence: Do not just write “Compliant.” Your checklist must specify exact document numbers, revisions, and section numbers within your technical file (e.g., See Performance Evaluation Report, Document PER-004, Revision B, Section 4.2).

  5. Track Transitional Milestones: Ensure your technical documentation updates align perfectly with the evolving regulatory landscape. Check our updated guide on IVDR Transitional Provisions and Milestones to make sure your compliance timelines are secure.

📄

Free Download: IVDR Annex I GSPR Compliance Checklist

Download our free IVDR Annex I General Safety & Performance Requirements (GSPR) Compliance Checklist to help assess conformity with Regulation (EU) 2017/746. This practical checklist provides a structured framework for reviewing the key requirements of Annex I, recording objective evidence and identifying potential compliance gaps before your Notified Body assessment.

⬇ Download Free PDF Checklist

Need Expert Support with Your GSPR Transition?

Transitioning an entire legacy technical file from the old Directive to the rigorous standards of the IVDR can be an overwhelming administrative and technical burden. Missing sub-clauses in Annex I or failing to provide sufficient clinical performance data is one of the leading causes of Notified Body delays.

At Patient Guard, we act as your dedicated regulatory partner. Our specialists can conduct a comprehensive gap analysis of your legacy technical files, build your compliance roadmaps, and author audit-ready GSPR checklists that stand up to Notified Body scrutiny.

Contact Patient Guard Today to discuss how we can streamline your path to IVDR compliance.

Frequently Asked Questions

The General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) are the essential safety, performance and information requirements set out in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR). Every IVD manufacturer must demonstrate compliance with the applicable GSPRs before placing a device on the European market.

No. Manufacturers only need to demonstrate compliance with the GSPRs that are applicable to their specific device. Where a requirement is not applicable, the manufacturer should provide a documented justification within the technical documentation.

Compliance is typically demonstrated through objective evidence contained within the technical documentation. This may include the Risk Management File, Performance Evaluation Report, verification and validation reports, labelling, Instructions for Use, usability documentation and post-market surveillance records.

A GSPR Checklist is a structured document that maps each applicable Annex I requirement against the evidence demonstrating compliance. It helps manufacturers identify compliance gaps, supports internal audits and provides traceability during Notified Body conformity assessments.

The IVDR does not explicitly require a document called a "GSPR Checklist". However, manufacturers must demonstrate conformity with all applicable Annex I requirements, and a structured checklist or compliance matrix is widely recognised as best practice for organising supporting evidence.

Typical evidence includes the Technical Documentation, Risk Management File, Performance Evaluation Report, verification and validation reports, stability studies, software documentation (where applicable), labelling, Instructions for Use, PMS documentation and the Declaration of Conformity.

ISO 14971 provides the internationally recognised framework for medical device risk management. It supports several Annex I requirements by helping manufacturers identify hazards, evaluate risks, implement risk controls and monitor residual risks throughout the device lifecycle.

ISO 13485 establishes the quality management system processes needed to consistently meet the IVDR General Safety and Performance Requirements. It covers areas such as design controls, document management, supplier management, production controls, CAPA and post-market activities.

Yes. Software used as, or within, an IVD medical device must comply with the applicable General Safety and Performance Requirements. Depending on the device, manufacturers may also need to demonstrate compliance with standards such as IEC 62304 for software lifecycle processes and implement appropriate cybersecurity controls.

Manufacturers should review and update their GSPR Checklist whenever significant changes are made to the device, technical documentation, intended purpose or applicable legislation. It should also be reviewed during design changes, post-market surveillance activities and before Notified Body assessments.

References

This guide is based on the following legislation, international standards and official regulatory guidance relating to the transition from the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Directive (IVDD) to the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR).

Organisation Reference Why it's relevant
European Union Regulation (EU) 2017/746 on In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices (IVDR) Provides the legal framework that replaced the IVDD Essential Requirements with the General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) contained within Annex I.
European Commission MDCG Endorsed Documents and Other Guidance Provides official Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) guidance supporting implementation of the IVDR, including technical documentation, Performance Evaluation and General Safety and Performance Requirements.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 13485:2016 – Medical Devices – Quality Management Systems – Requirements for Regulatory Purposes Defines the internationally recognised Quality Management System requirements supporting the preparation, maintenance and ongoing review of compliant technical documentation.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 14971:2019 – Medical Devices – Application of Risk Management to Medical Devices Provides the internationally recognised framework for documenting and maintaining risk management throughout the medical device lifecycle, supporting compliance with the IVDR GSPRs.
European Commission Notified Bodies for Medical Devices Provides official information on the designation and responsibilities of Notified Bodies involved in IVDR conformity assessment and the review of technical documentation.
European Commission EUDAMED – European Database on Medical Devices Provides official information on EUDAMED, supporting device registration, traceability and lifecycle compliance under the IVDR.

The transition from the IVDD to the IVDR continues to evolve through legislation, recognised standards and official guidance. Manufacturers should always consult the latest published requirements when updating legacy Essential Requirements Checklists and demonstrating compliance with the IVDR General Safety and Performance Requirements.

Eleanor Shackleton,  BSc

Eleanor Shackleton, BSc

Reviewed by
Eleanor Shcackleton, BSc
Clinical & Regulatory Specialist 
10+ years in medical device regulatory affairs MDR/IVDR compliance.

Patient Guards Recent Posts

Cosmetic Product Safety Report (CPSR): A Complete Guide to UK Cosmetic Compliance

Before a cosmetic product can legally be placed on the UK market, manufacturers and Responsible Persons must demonstrate that it is safe for human use under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions. The Cosmetic Product Safety Report (CPSR) is one of the most important regulatory documents required under the UK Cosmetics Regulation. This guide explains what a CPSR is, who can prepare one, what information it must contain, how it relates to the Product Information File (PIF) and how it supports legal cosmetic compliance.

Read More »

IVDR PMPF Explained: A Complete Guide to Post-Market Performance Follow-up

Post-Market Performance Follow-up (PMPF) is a fundamental requirement under the EU In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), ensuring that manufacturers continually monitor the scientific validity, analytical performance and clinical performance of their in vitro diagnostic medical devices after CE marking. This guide explains IVDR PMPF requirements, PMPF Plans, PMPF Reports, Annex XIII expectations and how ongoing performance monitoring supports continued regulatory compliance throughout the device lifecycle.

Read More »

Patient Guards Related Services

Patient Guards Regulatory Tools

Check out Patient Guards Training Courses

Share this guide:
Posted on Google Google
Jay Verma profile picture
Jay Verma
1 days ago
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I found Patient Guard Ltd to be an exceptional partner. Their assessment was thorough, their guidance clear, and their support instrumental in helping us achieve our objectives. Steve and Ellie, in particular, were outstanding in steering us through the MHRA Class I medical device registration process.
Posted on Google Google
Munna P profile picture
Munna P
54 days ago
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Working with the Patient Guard team has been a great experience throughout our MHRA and ISO 13485 documentation journey. Their expertise, structured approach, and practical guidance helped our team build a robust quality management system while keeping us aligned with regulatory expectations. The collaboration was professional, responsive, and focused on finding solutions rather than simply identifying issues. A special thank you to Alex and Steve for their outstanding coordination, responsiveness, and continuous support throughout the project. They were always approachable, provided valuable feedback, and worked closely with our team to resolve challenges efficiently. Their commitment made a significant difference in keeping our documentation effort on track. I highly recommend Patient Guard to any healthcare or MedTech organization looking for experienced regulatory and quality system partners for MHRA, ISO 13485, and broader medical device compliance initiatives. Thank you again to the entire Patient Guard team for being such reliable partners.
Posted on Google Google
Peter Reeve profile picture
Peter Reeve
81 days ago
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
STEPPER design, manufacture & distribute eyewear across the globe. With the increasingly complex landscape concerning the placing of Mecial Devices onto the market, we realised we needed professional guidance. We found Patient Guard via a simple internet search and are delighted we did! They provide a pragmatic solution to our needs, are totally reliable & always available to answer our (often simplistic) questions. They are highly efficient & responsive to what is a changing picture in our world and nothing is too much trouble. We have a much better understanding of regulatory affairs and our responsibilities as manufacturers & distributors and they support us in navigating the requirements in different territories. Updating our Declaration of Conformity, ensuring our labelling is compliant and acting as our PRRC are the key areas of their service for us.
Posted on Google Google
Derek Timm profile picture
Derek Timm
81 days ago
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
For those companıes lookıng to comply to ISO standards and ın partıcular ISO13485 whıch to be honest ıs a nıghtmare I would strongly suggest goıng to the professıonals as ındeed we dıd by joınıng forces wıth Patıent Guard Ltd The staff are fantastıc nothıng ıs too much trouble and as a medıcal supply company we sımply cannot lıve wıthout them Thanks ın partıcular to Alex and Steve for all the hard work and our best regards from Dan Medıca South Lımıted
Posted on Google Google
BMSCriticalCare profile picture
BMSCriticalCare
118 days ago
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Great service, very helpful and always willing to answer any questions we have,
Posted on Google Google
Thomson Software profile picture
Thomson Software
789 days ago
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Alex Lewis of PatientGuard guided us through the ISO13485 process in a thorough, systematic and efficient manner. He was friendly, patient and willing to go the extra mile. Excellent service.
Verified by Trustindex
Trustindex verified badge is the Universal Symbol of Trust. Only the greatest companies can get the verified badge who has a review score above 4.5, based on customer reviews over the past 12 months. Read more

Most Popular

Cosmetic Product Safety Report (CPSR): A Complete Guide to UK Cosmetic Compliance

Before a cosmetic product can legally be placed on the UK market, manufacturers and Responsible Persons must demonstrate that it is safe for human use under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions. The Cosmetic Product Safety Report (CPSR) is one of the most important regulatory documents required under the UK Cosmetics Regulation. This guide explains what a CPSR is, who can prepare one, what information it must contain, how it relates to the Product Information File (PIF) and how it supports legal cosmetic compliance.

Read More »

IVDR PMPF Explained: A Complete Guide to Post-Market Performance Follow-up

Post-Market Performance Follow-up (PMPF) is a fundamental requirement under the EU In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), ensuring that manufacturers continually monitor the scientific validity, analytical performance and clinical performance of their in vitro diagnostic medical devices after CE marking. This guide explains IVDR PMPF requirements, PMPF Plans, PMPF Reports, Annex XIII expectations and how ongoing performance monitoring supports continued regulatory compliance throughout the device lifecycle.

Read More »

IVDR Scientific Validity Explained: A Complete Guide for Manufacturers

Scientific Validity is the first pillar of IVDR Performance Evaluation and provides the scientific foundation demonstrating that an analyte or biomarker is associated with a specific clinical condition or physiological state. This guide explains Scientific Validity under Regulation (EU) 2017/746, including literature reviews, Scientific Validity Reports, Annex XIII requirements, evidence appraisal and how Scientific Validity supports successful CE marking.

Read More »
patient guard
Patient Guard

Sign up to our newsletter

Be the first to hear industry news and how Patient Guard can help you.

Get the latest updates on medical device regulation

Sign up to our newsletter and we’ll deliver news and insights straight to your inbox.

Get the Medical Device Technical Checklist

Thank you! The checklist is now ready to download.