Quick Answer
A 510(k) submission is a premarket notification to FDA showing that a medical device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. As of October 1, 2023, 510(k) submissions must be submitted electronically using eSTAR unless exempted. A complete 510(k) typically includes device description, indications for use, predicate comparison, substantial equivalence rationale, performance testing, labeling, sterilization or biocompatibility data when applicable, and either a 510(k) summary or 510(k) statement.
Key Takeaways
- A 510(k) submission is required for many Class I, Class II, and some Class III devices when PMA is not required and the device is not exempt from premarket notification.
- FDA reviews whether the new device has the same intended use as a legally marketed predicate and is as safe and effective as that predicate.
- Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated 510(k)s are different submission programs, but all must contain enough information for FDA to determine substantial equivalence.
- FDA performs an acceptance review, often called RTA review, before substantive review; missing administrative or technical elements can stop the review before it starts.
- eSTAR is now the required electronic submission template for 510(k)s unless an exemption applies.
- A 510(k) submission is the core FDA clearance pathway for many moderate-risk medical devices. It is not an approval application like a PMA. Instead, it is a premarket notification demonstrating that the new device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device, known as a predicate.
- The practical challenge is that a 510(k) is both a regulatory argument and a technical data package. FDA must be able to understand the device, compare it to the predicate, review performance data, and determine whether differences in technology or indications raise different questions of safety and effectiveness. A weak predicate strategy, incomplete testing package, or poorly organized eSTAR can lead to refuse-to-accept holds or additional information requests.
- This guide explains what FDA expects in a 510(k) submission, how eSTAR changes the filing workflow, and how to structure a submission package that is complete enough for review.
- In this guide, you will learn:
- What a 510(k) submission is and when it is required
- How Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated 510(k)s differ
- What content belongs in a 510(k) package
- How FDA acceptance review and substantive review work
- How to build a practical 510(k) submission checklist
- Related guides:
- From QMSR to eSTAR
- Quality records for regulatory submissions
- 510(k) vs De Novo classification
- Predicate device search
- Software as a medical device classification
- Medical device regulatory submission software
What Is a 510(k) Submission?
A 510(k) submission, also called a premarket notification, is a filing to FDA under 21 CFR Part 807 Subpart E. It asks FDA to determine that a new medical device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.
FDA's 510(k) pathway applies when a manufacturer wants to market a device in the United States and the device requires premarket notification rather than premarket approval. In general, the pathway is used when there is a legally marketed predicate device and the new device can be shown to have the same intended use and comparable safety and effectiveness.
A 510(k) submission is built around three questions:
- What is the device? FDA needs a clear description of the device, accessories, components, materials, technology, software, labeling, and intended users.
- What is the predicate? FDA needs to know which legally marketed device is being used as the comparison point.
- Why is the new device substantially equivalent? FDA needs a data-supported comparison showing that similarities and differences do not create new questions of safety or effectiveness.
The 510(k) is not a single form. FDA describes it as an organized, tabulated submission containing enough information for FDA to determine substantial equivalence. eSTAR now provides the structured electronic template for preparing that package.
When a 510(k) Is Usually Required
A 510(k) may be required when:
- A manufacturer introduces a device into U.S. commercial distribution for the first time
- A device is not exempt from 510(k) requirements
- A legally marketed predicate exists
- A previously cleared device is modified in a way that could significantly affect safety or effectiveness
- A device is marketed for a new or different indication for use
The exact determination depends on the device classification regulation, product code, exemption limitations, and the nature of any device modifications. For modified devices, FDA has separate guidance on when a new 510(k) is required.
510(k) vs De Novo vs PMA
| Pathway | Best Fit | Core FDA Question |
|---|---|---|
| 510(k) | Device has a legally marketed predicate | Is the device substantially equivalent to the predicate? |
| De Novo | Novel low-to-moderate-risk device without a predicate | Can the device be classified into Class I or II with appropriate controls? |
| PMA | High-risk Class III device | Is there valid scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness? |
If a device has no predicate but is low-to-moderate risk, the De Novo pathway may be more appropriate. If the device is Class III and requires independent evidence of safety and effectiveness, PMA may be required.
510(k) Submission Requirements
FDA's 510(k) content expectations come from 21 CFR 807.87, FDA guidance, and the eSTAR template. The details vary by device type, but the same core information categories appear across most submissions.
| Submission Element | Purpose | Practical Notes |
|---|---|---|
| User fee cover sheet | Confirms MDUFA user fee payment | FDA verifies fee payment before review proceeds. |
| Cover letter / administrative information | Identifies submitter, device, submission type, and contacts | Clearly label the submission as Traditional, Special, or Abbreviated. |
| Indications for use | Defines the disease, condition, or use environment | Must align with the predicate comparison and labeling. |
| Device description | Explains design, components, materials, technology, and operation | Include accessories, variants, software, and patient-contacting materials when applicable. |
| Predicate device information | Identifies legally marketed predicate device | Predicate selection is the foundation of the substantial equivalence argument. |
| Substantial equivalence comparison | Compares intended use and technological characteristics | Address similarities and differences directly. |
| Performance testing | Supports safety and effectiveness comparison | May include bench, software, electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility, sterilization, animal, or clinical data. |
| Proposed labeling | Shows intended users, directions, warnings, and claims | Labeling must be consistent with indications and testing. |
| 510(k) summary or statement | Required before FDA begins scientific review | Summary follows 21 CFR 807.92; statement follows 21 CFR 807.93. |
| Truthful and accuracy statement | Certifies truthfulness and completeness | Required administrative element. |
Device Description
The device description should be detailed enough for a reviewer to understand what the device is, how it works, and how it differs from the predicate. A strong description usually includes:
- Device name, model numbers, and configurations
- Components and accessories
- Materials, especially patient-contacting materials
- Principles of operation
- Energy sources or outputs, if applicable
- Software functions, if applicable
- Sterile or reusable status
- Packaging and shelf-life approach
- Engineering drawings, diagrams, or photographs where useful
For software-enabled devices, the device description should also align with FDA expectations for software documentation, cybersecurity, data flow, and risk management.
Indications for Use
The indications for use statement defines the clinical context in which the device will be marketed. It is one of the most important parts of a 510(k) because it drives the predicate comparison.
A mismatch between the new device's intended use and the predicate's intended use can create a substantial equivalence problem. The indications statement should be precise enough for FDA to evaluate intended population, condition, use environment, user type, and whether the device is prescription or over-the-counter.
Predicate Comparison
The predicate comparison should not be a loose marketing comparison. It should be a structured regulatory comparison that addresses:
- Same or different intended use
- Same or different technological characteristics
- Materials and patient contact
- Operating principles
- Energy source or delivered energy
- Software functions
- Performance specifications
- Testing standards and acceptance criteria
- Labeling differences
For help choosing and documenting predicates, see our predicate device search guide.
Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated 510(k)s
FDA recognizes three main 510(k) submission programs: Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated.
| 510(k) Type | When Used | Review Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional 510(k) | Original devices or changes not suited to Special or Abbreviated pathways | Full substantial equivalence review. |
| Special 510(k) | Certain changes to a manufacturer's own legally marketed device | Generally intended for cases where performance data can be reviewed in summary or risk-analysis format. |
| Abbreviated 510(k) | Submissions relying on FDA guidance, special controls, or voluntary consensus standards | Must still include required 21 CFR 807.87 elements, with summary reports or declarations supporting the approach. |
The submission type should match the regulatory question. A Special 510(k) is not simply a faster Traditional 510(k); it is intended for specific types of device changes where FDA can rely on design controls and summary-level performance information. An Abbreviated 510(k) is not a shortcut around testing; it relies on recognized standards, special controls, or guidance to organize the evidence.
If the wrong submission type is selected, the file can lose time during acceptance or review.
eSTAR Requirements for 510(k) Submissions
As of October 1, 2023, FDA requires all 510(k) submissions to be submitted electronically using eSTAR unless exempted. eSTAR is FDA's electronic Submission Template And Resource. It is intended to improve consistency in submission preparation and FDA review.
For CDRH submissions, eSTAR is submitted through the CDRH Customer Collaboration Portal. For CBER-led device submissions, FDA's eSTAR page identifies the Electronic Submission Gateway as the submission route.
What eSTAR Changes
eSTAR changes the mechanics of preparing a 510(k), but not the underlying evidentiary burden. The submitter still needs the right predicate, correct indications, complete test data, and a defensible substantial equivalence rationale.
| Area | Before eSTAR | With eSTAR |
|---|---|---|
| Submission structure | Manually organized eCopy sections | Structured FDA template |
| Required fields | Checklist-driven | Built into template prompts |
| Attachments | Manually assembled | Attached within template sections |
| Review readiness | Dependent on submitter formatting discipline | More standardized, but still requires complete evidence |
eSTAR helps reduce format variability, but it does not fix weak data. Treat it as a structured container, not a regulatory strategy.
510(k) Submission Process and Timeline
The 510(k) submission process has several review stages. The exact elapsed time depends on completeness, FDA questions, and whether the file goes on hold.
| Stage | FDA Activity | Timeline Signal |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt and verification | FDA assigns a K number and verifies user fee plus valid eSTAR/eCopy | FDA may issue a hold if fee or valid submission format is missing. |
| Acceptance review | FDA determines whether the submission meets the minimum threshold for substantive review | FDA communicates acceptance status within 15 calendar days. |
| Substantive review | FDA performs the scientific and regulatory review | Substantive interaction generally occurs within 60 calendar days of receipt. |
| Interactive review or AI request | FDA resolves deficiencies informally or issues an Additional Information request | AI requests place the submission on hold. |
| Decision | FDA issues SE, NSE, AI, or other applicable action | Device may not be marketed until FDA issues an SE order. |
Acceptance Review and RTA Holds
FDA's acceptance review determines whether the 510(k) contains the minimum information needed for substantive review. A file that is not accepted is placed on RTA Hold. The submitter then has 180 calendar days to address the deficiencies. If the issues are not resolved, FDA considers the 510(k) withdrawn.
Common RTA-risk areas include:
- Missing administrative information
- Incomplete indications for use
- Missing device description
- Missing predicate comparison
- Missing performance data or unclear test rationale
- Missing sterilization, biocompatibility, software, or electrical safety information when applicable
- Incomplete labeling
- 510(k) summary or statement problems
Substantive Review and Additional Information Requests
Once accepted, the 510(k) enters substantive review. FDA may resolve smaller questions through interactive review. More significant deficiencies can result in an Additional Information request, which pauses the review clock until the submitter provides a complete response.
AI requests often arise when the submission does not clearly answer the core substantial equivalence questions:
- Does the device have the same intended use as the predicate?
- Are technological differences adequately characterized?
- Does testing support the claimed performance?
- Do labeling claims match the evidence?
- Are software, cybersecurity, biocompatibility, sterilization, or electrical safety data complete for the device type?
510(k) Submission Checklist
Use this checklist before finalizing the eSTAR package.
| Area | Checklist Item |
|---|---|
| Submission strategy | Confirm the device requires 510(k), not De Novo, PMA, or exemption. |
| Submission type | Confirm Traditional, Special, or Abbreviated route. |
| Product code | Identify classification regulation, product code, and review panel. |
| Predicate | Confirm a legally marketed predicate with same intended use. |
| Indications | Draft indications for use and align them with predicate and labeling. |
| Device description | Include complete design, components, accessories, materials, and operation. |
| Substantial equivalence | Build a side-by-side comparison table with rationale for all differences. |
| Performance testing | Include bench, software, biocompatibility, sterilization, EMC, electrical safety, animal, or clinical data as applicable. |
| Standards | Identify recognized consensus standards and declarations of conformity where used. |
| Labeling | Include proposed labeling, instructions for use, warnings, contraindications, and claims. |
| Summary or statement | Include a 510(k) summary or 510(k) statement meeting 21 CFR 807.92 or 807.93. |
| eSTAR completeness | Resolve required fields, attachments, and validation prompts before submission. |
| Internal QC | Verify all cross-references, file names, version dates, and testing reports align. |
How Assyro Supports 510(k) Submission Readiness
510(k) risk usually starts before the final upload. Predicate selection, substantial equivalence rationale, test evidence, labeling claims, and eSTAR completeness all need to line up.
Assyro's medical device workflows help teams organize and validate submission readiness before filing. eSTAR Validation can help identify missing or inconsistent elements in the submission package, while medical device regulatory submission software supports the broader filing workflow across 510(k), De Novo, and PMA programs.
For teams preparing a 510(k), the highest-value use case is not just checking whether a PDF exists. It is catching whether the submission logic is coherent: the indication matches the predicate, the evidence supports the claims, and the package is ready for FDA acceptance review.
A 510(k) submission is a premarket notification to FDA showing that a medical device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. FDA must issue a substantially equivalent order before the device may be marketed through the 510(k) pathway.
References
This guide reflects FDA device submission requirements and eSTAR expectations current as of May 2026. Requirements can change; always confirm against the latest FDA guidance, classification regulation, product code guidance, and review division feedback before filing.
About the author
Assyro Team
Expert regulatory operations consultants helping pharmaceutical companies navigate complex compliance challenges.
See Assyro in action
Catch eCTD and eSTAR errors before your FDA review cycle.
Book a 20-minute demo this week. We'll validate a sample of your submission live and show you exactly where Assyro catches what your current QC misses.