How Should Multi-Country Registration Dossiers Be Planned Under the IMDRF Regulatory Reliance Trend?

Under the IMDRF regulatory reliance and international harmonisation trend, multi-country medical device registration dossiers should be planned around a single global registration master file rather than assembled separately for each country. That master file should contain the product classification basis, technical documentation, risk management, performance verification, clinical evidence, a labelling matrix, a certificate matrix and a post-market data matrix, so that documentation can be reused efficiently across GHWP markets, ASEAN, the Middle East, Africa and mature markets. The depth of documentation still needs to be confirmed against the product's risk class, intended use and the latest requirements of each regulator, and official IMDRF sources should always be retained as the reference basis.

Key summary

The IMDRF regulatory reliance and international harmonisation trend indicates that multi-country medical device registration will increasingly rely on trusted regulatory outcomes, reuse of review documentation, post-market data and regulatory information sharing. Companies should not compile a separate dossier for every country. Instead, they should establish a global registration master file covering the product classification basis, technical documentation, risk management, performance verification, clinical evidence, labelling matrix, certificate matrix and post-market data matrix. This is how documentation reuse can be improved across GHWP markets, ASEAN, the Middle East, Africa and mature markets.

Published: 8 July 2026, 09:00  |  Updated: 8 July 2026, 09:00

Reference basis

• Official source: IMDRF
• Source link: https://www.imdrf.org/documents/library

This article is based on publicly available official information combined with AIMEILI's experience in international registration projects. The specific pathway should still be determined according to the product's risk class, intended use and the latest requirements of the relevant regulatory authority.

Who should read this

This content is relevant to medical device manufacturers, regulatory affairs professionals, overseas market managers and CRO teams currently preparing projects involving international harmonisation and documentation reuse. If a company already holds documentation for China, the EU, the US or other markets but is unsure whether it can be reused in a target market, it should also read this article and complete a gap assessment before project initiation.

Regulatory assessment logic

Companies should first confirm the product's regulatory status, risk class, intended use, applicable regulatory pathway and local responsible entity, and only then determine the required depth of documentation. IMDRF-related requirements are generally not assessed file by file in isolation; the regulator looks at whether product claims, technical evidence, labelling and instructions for use, quality system and post-market responsibilities are consistent with one another.

Documentation priorities

A dossier package should be built around the product description, model and specification range, risk management, performance verification, clinical or evaluation evidence, quality system, labelling and instructions for use, authorisation documents, UDI or traceability information, change management and post-market surveillance. For software, artificial intelligence-enabled devices, IVD, sterile, active and medium-to-high risk products, additional dedicated evidence should be added.

Operational steps for companies

• First, establish a product and model list.
• Second, re-classify the products for each target market.
• Third, verify the coverage of existing certificates and test reports.
• Fourth, identify labelling, language, local representative and post-market obligations.
• Fifth, produce a gap list and a supplementary documentation plan.
• Sixth, arrange translation, signing, submission and responses to review questions.

Common errors

Common errors include directly translating domestic documentation, overlooking the local responsible entity, over-relying on existing CE or FDA documentation, unclear product model coverage, labelling claims that go beyond the available evidence, and missing post-market surveillance and change control processes. What regulators really focus on is whether the evidence chain is closed, not the number of documents submitted.

AIMEILI professional recommendations

AIMEILI recommends incorporating this question into the registration project initiation assessment rather than supplementing files shortly before submission. A more robust approach is to complete the pathway assessment and documentation gap assessment first, and then manage target countries, product classification, documentation reuse, additional testing, local representatives and post-market maintenance within a single project plan.

Internal checklist

• Are the product classification, intended use and model range clearly defined?
• Do the existing certificates, test reports and technical documentation cover the scope of the application?
• Are the responsibilities of the local representative, sponsor or registration holder clearly defined?
• Have labelling, instructions for use, UDI, language and post-market maintenance been planned?
• Has a documentation gap list and supplementary testing plan been produced?
• Have official sources and a statement of applicable scope been retained?

Continue reading

Previous: Why Is the Technical File and Local Responsible Entity So Important for Saudi SFDA MDMA Registration?

Next: How Do EU EUDAMED and SSCP Requirements Affect MDR Certificate Holders?

Recommended reading

• What Should Companies Prepare Before TGA Medical Device Registration in Australia?
• Can CE Documentation Be Reused for HSA Medical Device Registration in Singapore?
• Which Core Documents Are Required for UAE MOHAP Medical Device Registration?
• Why Does ANVISA Medical Device Registration in Brazil Take So Long?
• What Is the Difference Between an Import Licence and a Registration Certificate for Medical Devices in Vietnam?
• How Should a Local Authorised Representative Be Selected for Medical Device Registration in Indonesia?

Back to the FAQ centre  |  News and insights  |  Contact AIMEILI

Content review and scope of application

• Author: AIMEILI Regulatory Editorial Team
• Professional review: AIMEILI Medical Device International Registration Project Team
• Source principle: Priority is given to official regulatory authorities, international organisations, standards organisations and publicly available regulatory materials; industry media and project experience are used only as supporting judgement.
• Scope of application: This article supports preliminary understanding, documentation preparation and project planning. It does not replace the formal requirements of the target country's regulatory authority, test conclusions or legal advice.