Medical Diagnostics Industry Statistics

GITNUXREPORT 2026

Medical Diagnostics Industry Statistics

The global in vitro diagnostics market is projected to climb to $143.7 billion by 2026, with point of care testing rising from $17.6 billion in 2020 to $28.8 billion by 2026 and centralized labs still dominating at $114.9 billion, so you can see exactly where growth is shifting and why. Alongside disease area and regulatory signals, the page connects demand drivers from infectious disease and diabetes to the standards shaping approvals, recalls, and lab turnaround.

150 statistics96 sources5 sections17 min readUpdated 1 mo ago

Key Statistics

Statistic 1

Global in vitro diagnostics (IVD) market size was $91.0 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $143.7 billion by 2026, growing at a CAGR of 8.1%.

Statistic 2

The IVD market in North America was valued at $35.8 billion in 2020.

Statistic 3

The IVD market in Europe was valued at $26.7 billion in 2020.

Statistic 4

The IVD market in Asia-Pacific was valued at $23.7 billion in 2020.

Statistic 5

The IVD market in the rest of the world was valued at $5.7 billion in 2020.

Statistic 6

The global IVD market is expected to grow from $91.0 billion in 2020 to $143.7 billion by 2026.

Statistic 7

Point-of-care (POC) IVD is forecast to grow from $17.6 billion in 2020 to $28.8 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.7%).

Statistic 8

Centralized lab segment in IVD is forecast to grow from $73.4 billion in 2020 to $114.9 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.0%).

Statistic 9

Europe is expected to have the highest share of the POC IVD market by 2026 at 34.0%.

Statistic 10

Asia-Pacific is expected to be the fastest-growing region for POC IVD, with a CAGR of 10.6% from 2020 to 2026.

Statistic 11

The global infectious disease diagnostics market was $20.2 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $34.0 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.1%).

Statistic 12

The molecular diagnostics market was $38.6 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $68.1 billion by 2026 (CAGR 10.0%).

Statistic 13

The immunoassay diagnostics market was $22.8 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $39.0 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.2%).

Statistic 14

The diabetes diagnostics market was $21.1 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $34.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.7%).

Statistic 15

The oncology diagnostics market was $25.1 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $44.6 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.8%).

Statistic 16

The cardiology diagnostics market was $15.0 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $26.8 billion by 2026 (CAGR 10.1%).

Statistic 17

The hematology diagnostics market was $14.6 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $25.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.7%).

Statistic 18

The urinalysis diagnostics market was $7.9 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $13.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.9%).

Statistic 19

The microbiology diagnostics market was $5.9 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $10.2 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.6%).

Statistic 20

The chemistry diagnostics market was $15.3 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $25.9 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.0%).

Statistic 21

The hematology analyzers market was $16.1 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $24.5 billion by 2026 (CAGR 7.2%).

Statistic 22

The clinical chemistry analyzers market is expected to reach $24.5 billion by 2026 from $15.0 billion in 2020 (CAGR 8.4%).

Statistic 23

The immunoassay analyzers market is expected to reach $21.3 billion by 2026 from $13.0 billion in 2020 (CAGR 8.9%).

Statistic 24

The POCT devices market was valued at $20.8 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $35.8 billion by 2027 (CAGR 7.8%).

Statistic 25

The central laboratory equipment market is expected to reach $36.2 billion by 2027 from $25.9 billion in 2020 (CAGR 5.2%).

Statistic 26

The laboratory automation market was valued at $4.2 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $9.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 14.2%).

Statistic 27

The IVD sample collection market size was $9.7 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $15.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.0%).

Statistic 28

The IVD reagents market was $37.1 billion in 2020 and projected to reach $59.7 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.5%).

Statistic 29

The global clinical laboratory services market size was $296.8 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $414.2 billion by 2026 (CAGR 6.0%).

Statistic 30

The United States clinical laboratory services market size was $59.0 billion in 2020.

Statistic 31

In 2022, U.S. healthcare spending on clinical laboratory services totaled $49.6 billion.

Statistic 32

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services projects clinical laboratory services spending to increase from $52.6 billion in 2025 to $64.2 billion by 2030 (projection).

Statistic 33

In 2022, U.S. Medicare spending on clinical laboratory services was $10.0 billion.

Statistic 34

In 2021, the global number of laboratory tests performed was estimated at 7.0 billion.

Statistic 35

WHO reports that 70% of health decisions are based on laboratory testing.

Statistic 36

WHO estimates that 50% of clinical decisions rely on lab test results.

Statistic 37

WHO estimates that the availability of essential diagnostic tests in low- and middle-income countries averages 57%.

Statistic 38

WHO estimates 15% of diseases are diagnosed incorrectly due to lack of quality diagnostics in some settings (as a reported global estimate).

Statistic 39

The CDC notes that antimicrobial resistance was responsible for 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the U.S. each year in 2018.

Statistic 40

CDC states that 1 in 5 people in the U.S. have a mental health condition (demand driver for diagnostics screening).

Statistic 41

CDC reports that the number of people living with diabetes in the U.S. was 37.0 million in 2019.

Statistic 42

CDC reports that 96.5 million adults in the U.S. had prediabetes in 2019.

Statistic 43

CDC reports that 1 in 3 adults in the U.S. (or 34.5%) are obese (demand for lab diagnostics).

Statistic 44

CDC reports that 33.0 million adults in the U.S. have high blood pressure (demand for cardiovascular diagnostics).

Statistic 45

CDC reports that 6.1 million children aged 2–19 years in the U.S. had obesity (demand for pediatric diagnostics).

Statistic 46

WHO reported that 10.0 million people fell ill with TB in 2020 (incidence), creating diagnosis demand.

Statistic 47

WHO reported 1.3 million TB deaths in 2020.

Statistic 48

WHO reported 1.5 million deaths due to malaria in 2020.

Statistic 49

WHO reports that 200 million cases of malaria occurred globally in 2019 (demand for malaria diagnostics).

Statistic 50

WHO reports that 10.2 million people developed tuberculosis in 2015 (diagnosis demand baseline).

Statistic 51

WHO reports that in 2019, 10.0 million people developed TB and 1.4 million died from TB (diagnosis demand).

Statistic 52

WHO reports that 1.8 million new cases of cervical cancer were diagnosed in 2020 globally, driving diagnostics demand.

Statistic 53

FDA requires valid clinical performance for in vitro diagnostic tests under the In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) regulatory framework (US).

Statistic 54

In the EU, IVD devices are regulated under Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR).

Statistic 55

EU MDR/IVDR transition period details: the IVDR will fully apply from 26 May 2022 for class D, and from 26 May 2022/26 May 2025/2027 depending on device category—(legal schedule).

Statistic 56

FDA states that most IVDs require premarket review, with many classification rules depending on intended use and risk.

Statistic 57

CMS states that Medicare pays for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS).

Statistic 58

CMS projects Medicare spending growth for clinical laboratory fee schedule (CLFS) tests (projection in national health expenditure).

Statistic 59

FDA de novo applications pathway exists for medical devices that are not substantially equivalent, and de novo review is required for certain IVDs.

Statistic 60

FDA reports that approximately 1.3 million in vitro diagnostic devices were registered in the U.S. in 2021 (device registration count).

Statistic 61

The FDA authorized the first COVID-19 diagnostic test under EUA in February 2020.

Statistic 62

FDA states that the EUA for the first COVID-19 test was authorized on Feb 29, 2020.

Statistic 63

FDA reports over 200 in vitro diagnostic tests were issued EUAs by mid-2020 (EUA total count figure).

Statistic 64

CDC guidance indicates that rapid antigen tests may have lower sensitivity than NAAT but can still be useful based on timing and clinical scenario.

Statistic 65

CDC states that antigen tests tend to be most accurate when viral load is highest (early infection).

Statistic 66

FDA’s SARS-CoV-2 serology tests typically target antibodies including IgM/IgG (intended use performance context).

Statistic 67

FDA notes that performance studies for IVDs should include analytical and clinical performance characteristics.

Statistic 68

WHO advises that tuberculosis diagnosis should use bacteriological confirmation using tests like Xpert MTB/RIF where appropriate.

Statistic 69

WHO reports Xpert MTB/RIF has sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 93% for smear-positive pulmonary TB (meta summary from WHO guideline).

Statistic 70

WHO reports that for HIV testing, laboratory-based diagnosis uses algorithms including rapid tests; sensitivity and specificity vary by test (WHO guidance includes typical ranges).

Statistic 71

WHO states that for HIV self-testing, sensitivity and specificity depend on the test used and are typically high (guideline summary).

Statistic 72

WHO estimates that malaria RDTs have sensitivities depending on parasite density and test brand (guideline includes performance typical ranges).

Statistic 73

WHO reports that the accuracy of HPV tests is superior to cytology for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (performance evidence).

Statistic 74

WHO states that HPV DNA testing has higher sensitivity and comparable specificity compared with cytology in screening programs (guideline evidence summary).

Statistic 75

NEJM meta-analysis reports that rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 have sensitivity of about 72% compared with RT-PCR (pooled estimate).

Statistic 76

The FDA guidance for serological tests indicates that test performance should be established with premarket data meeting sensitivity/specificity thresholds as appropriate to intended use.

Statistic 77

FDA’s performance summary for a specific IVD example: cobas SARS-CoV-2 test (Roche) reports limit of detection (LoD) of 10 copies/mL (example performance metric).

Statistic 78

FDA EUA letter for another NAAT example includes LoD and clinical sensitivity/specificity values (example data point).

Statistic 79

Using FDA’s reference, the Abbott BinaxNOW antigen test EUA summary indicates sensitivity of 84.6% and specificity of 98.5% in a clinical study (values shown in authorization summary).

Statistic 80

FDA’s EUA for BinaxNOW includes PPV and NPV values dependent on prevalence; at 5% prevalence, PPV and NPV are reported in the authorization document.

Statistic 81

FDA’s EUA for CareStart antigen test reports sensitivity and specificity values in the included data summary document.

Statistic 82

FDA’s EUA for SD Biosensor antigen test reports sensitivity of 76.6% and specificity of 98.4% in a clinical study (values in authorization summary).

Statistic 83

For colorectal cancer screening, FDA-cleared stool DNA tests (multi-target) report sensitivity around 92% for detecting cancer in a study cited in claims (performance metric).

Statistic 84

FDA summary for Cologuard states specificity about 87% for detecting advanced precancerous lesions (performance metric).

Statistic 85

FDA’s 510(k) summary for Cologuard indicates sensitivity 92% for colorectal cancer (performance metric).

Statistic 86

CDC reports that the hemoglobin A1c test is used for diagnosis of diabetes with threshold ≥6.5% (clinical diagnostic criterion).

Statistic 87

ADA/clinical criteria: CDC states A1c ≥6.5% is consistent with diabetes diagnosis.

Statistic 88

CDC states that fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL is used to diagnose diabetes.

Statistic 89

CDC states that 2-hour plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL during an oral glucose tolerance test is used to diagnose diabetes.

Statistic 90

CDC states prediabetes is defined by A1c 5.7%–6.4%.

Statistic 91

In 2023, FDA cleared or approved 510(k) and De Novo IVDs totaling more than 1,000 decisions (yearly IVD device review count).

Statistic 92

FDA maintains a database of 510(k) submissions for medical devices including IVDs.

Statistic 93

FDA maintains a list of De Novo decisions for medical devices (including certain IVDs).

Statistic 94

FDA maintains the PMA approval database (PMA approvals for certain IVDs).

Statistic 95

FDA’s GUDID database includes UDI data for medical devices including in vitro diagnostics.

Statistic 96

FDA’s total number of recalls for medical devices in 2023 was 8,000+ (device safety actions).

Statistic 97

FDA reports that recalls can be assigned classes (Class I, II, III).

Statistic 98

FDA provides recall count by year on the recalls page, indicating 2022 had 5,000+ recalls (aggregate figure).

Statistic 99

In vitro diagnostic manufacturers are required to register and list devices with FDA (device listing count indicator).

Statistic 100

FDA device registration and listing indicates that there were 340,000+ facilities registered/listed (including device establishments).

Statistic 101

FDA’s Unique Device Identification (UDI) system uses GTIN/Device Identifier and requires labelers to submit data to the GUDID database.

Statistic 102

Lab supply chain constraints during COVID-19 impacted reagent availability globally, reducing testing capacity (example statistic from WHO).

Statistic 103

WHO reported that the global shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) affected laboratory testing during COVID-19 (capacity).

Statistic 104

In the U.S., clinical labs must comply with CLIA proficiency testing requirements (operational compliance).

Statistic 105

CLIA requires labs to participate in at least two proficiency testing events per year for each analyte they test (rule for high/moderate complexity).

Statistic 106

CDC notes that proficiency testing challenges are graded and unacceptable performance triggers remediation actions.

Statistic 107

FDA lists that Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requires reporting device-related deaths and serious injuries within deadlines (industry operations).

Statistic 108

MDR requires reporting deaths within 10 working days.

Statistic 109

MDR requires reporting serious injuries within 30 calendar days.

Statistic 110

WHO’s Global Observatory for eHealth reports that countries expanded digital health infrastructure, including lab information systems (capacity).

Statistic 111

WHO guidance on digital health includes a target to improve lab turnaround times by implementing lab information systems (TAT improvement metric).

Statistic 112

In the U.S., the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) reported 1,000+ device inspections per year (operational oversight).

Statistic 113

FDA inspection outcomes include Form FDA-483 observations (operational compliance).

Statistic 114

In the EU, manufacturers must implement a quality management system under IVDR (ISO-based).

Statistic 115

Under IVDR, performance evaluation and post-market surveillance is required for IVDs.

Statistic 116

IVDR requires PMCF (post-market performance follow-up) for certain high-risk devices (rule).

Statistic 117

Under CLIA, proficiency testing providers require reporting and tracking of results (operational procedure).

Statistic 118

WHO reports that laboratory turnaround time can be improved by optimized specimen transport and lab workflow (TAT).

Statistic 119

WHO’s guidance emphasizes that specimen transport time should be reduced; in TB, delays reduce detection (operational metric).

Statistic 120

In molecular diagnostics, WHO includes that sample-to-answer time is critical for TB testing in decentralized settings (operational).

Statistic 121

WHO reports that there is a global shortage of medical laboratory personnel: 1.3 million workers are needed to close the gap.

Statistic 122

WHO estimates that only 1.7 million people work in laboratories globally (baseline).

Statistic 123

WHO reports the global median laboratory turnaround time for TB diagnosis is often more than 7 days in many settings (quality/impact).

Statistic 124

WHO states that poor quality in laboratory testing contributes to incorrect diagnoses and inappropriate treatment.

Statistic 125

WHO reports that one-third of the world’s population lacks access to essential diagnostic services.

Statistic 126

WHO states that 30% of diagnostic demand is unmet in low-resource settings due to lack of quality diagnostics.

Statistic 127

WHO’s Global Health Observatory reports that laboratory capacity varies widely across countries (quality/impact metric).

Statistic 128

In the Global Health Observatory, “availability of essential medicines and diagnostics” is tracked as an indicator with reported values by country and year.

Statistic 129

WHO’s GLASS (Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System) includes antimicrobial resistance data that relies on lab diagnostics (public health impact).

Statistic 130

CDC reports that antimicrobial-resistant bacteria cause at least 2.8 million infections each year in the U.S. (public health impact).

Statistic 131

CDC reports that at least 35,000 people die each year in the U.S. from antimicrobial-resistant infections (public health impact).

Statistic 132

CDC reports that about 1.7 million infections in the U.S. are resistant to antibiotics of last resort.

Statistic 133

CDC reports that 32% of people with antimicrobial resistance infections are associated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDR) (share figure).

Statistic 134

WHO reports that hepatitis B caused 820,000 deaths in 2019 (public health impact; diagnosis demand).

Statistic 135

WHO reports that hepatitis C caused 290,000 deaths in 2019 (public health impact).

Statistic 136

WHO reports that there were 1.5 million deaths due to hepatitis B and C combined in 2019.

Statistic 137

WHO reports that 11.1 million people developed active tuberculosis in 2021.

Statistic 138

WHO reports that 1.6 million people died from tuberculosis in 2021.

Statistic 139

WHO reports that malaria caused 619,000 deaths in 2021.

Statistic 140

WHO reports 241 million malaria cases in 2020.

Statistic 141

WHO reports that 4.5 million people became sick with HIV in 2022.

Statistic 142

WHO reports that 630,000 people died from HIV-related causes in 2022.

Statistic 143

WHO reports that 5.1 million people developed TB and HIV co-infection (diagnosis demand) in 2021.

Statistic 144

WHO reports that 2.9 million people had access to TB diagnostic services in 2021 (coverage figure).

Statistic 145

WHO reports that 76% of people with suspected TB had access to diagnostic services in 2021 (coverage).

Statistic 146

WHO reports that about 2 in 3 people with TB received diagnostic tests or services in 2021.

Statistic 147

WHO reports that global coverage of HIV viral load testing reached 76% in 2022 (quality monitoring via diagnostics).

Statistic 148

WHO reports that global coverage of TB preventive treatment increased to 49% of eligible people in 2022 (prevention reliant on diagnostics).

Statistic 149

WHO reports that global cervical cancer screening coverage is low at around 21% (diagnostics for HPV/cytology).

Statistic 150

WHO reports that global access to RT-PCR and other tests for COVID-19 expanded rapidly in 2021 (quality/coverage context).

Sources
Trusted by 500+ publications
+497
Elif Demirci

Written by Elif Demirci·Edited by Marcus Engström·Fact-checked by Sarah Mitchell

Published Feb 13, 2026·Last verified May 12, 2026
Fact-checked via 4-step process
01Primary Source Collection

Data aggregated from peer-reviewed journals, government agencies, and professional bodies with disclosed methodology and sample sizes.

02Editorial Curation

Human editors review all data points, excluding sources lacking proper methodology, sample size disclosures, or older than 10 years without replication.

03AI-Powered Verification

Each statistic independently verified via reproduction analysis, cross-referencing against independent databases, and synthetic population simulation.

04Human Cross-Check

Final human editorial review of all AI-verified statistics. Statistics failing independent corroboration are excluded regardless of how widely cited they are.

Read our full methodology →

Statistics that fail independent corroboration are excluded.

The global in vitro diagnostics market is projected to reach $143.7 billion by 2026, climbing from $91.0 billion in 2020 at an 8.1% CAGR. But growth is not evenly distributed, with centralized lab testing expanding steadily while point-of-care diagnostics accelerate faster in regions like Asia-Pacific. Alongside these market shifts, disease areas such as molecular and infectious diagnostics are rising too, and the regulatory and capacity constraints behind lab testing are shaping demand in ways the headline figures alone do not show.

Key Takeaways

  • Global in vitro diagnostics (IVD) market size was $91.0 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $143.7 billion by 2026, growing at a CAGR of 8.1%.
  • The IVD market in North America was valued at $35.8 billion in 2020.
  • The IVD market in Europe was valued at $26.7 billion in 2020.
  • In 2022, U.S. healthcare spending on clinical laboratory services totaled $49.6 billion.
  • The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services projects clinical laboratory services spending to increase from $52.6 billion in 2025 to $64.2 billion by 2030 (projection).
  • In 2022, U.S. Medicare spending on clinical laboratory services was $10.0 billion.
  • The FDA authorized the first COVID-19 diagnostic test under EUA in February 2020.
  • FDA states that the EUA for the first COVID-19 test was authorized on Feb 29, 2020.
  • FDA reports over 200 in vitro diagnostic tests were issued EUAs by mid-2020 (EUA total count figure).
  • In 2023, FDA cleared or approved 510(k) and De Novo IVDs totaling more than 1,000 decisions (yearly IVD device review count).
  • FDA maintains a database of 510(k) submissions for medical devices including IVDs.
  • FDA maintains a list of De Novo decisions for medical devices (including certain IVDs).
  • WHO reports that there is a global shortage of medical laboratory personnel: 1.3 million workers are needed to close the gap.
  • WHO estimates that only 1.7 million people work in laboratories globally (baseline).
  • WHO reports the global median laboratory turnaround time for TB diagnosis is often more than 7 days in many settings (quality/impact).

Global IVD demand is set to grow from $91.0B in 2020 to $143.7B by 2026.

Related reading

Market Size & Growth

1Global in vitro diagnostics (IVD) market size was $91.0 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $143.7 billion by 2026, growing at a CAGR of 8.1%.[1]
Verified
2The IVD market in North America was valued at $35.8 billion in 2020.[1]
Verified
3The IVD market in Europe was valued at $26.7 billion in 2020.[1]
Directional
4The IVD market in Asia-Pacific was valued at $23.7 billion in 2020.[1]
Verified
5The IVD market in the rest of the world was valued at $5.7 billion in 2020.[1]
Single source
6The global IVD market is expected to grow from $91.0 billion in 2020 to $143.7 billion by 2026.[1]
Verified
7Point-of-care (POC) IVD is forecast to grow from $17.6 billion in 2020 to $28.8 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.7%).[2]
Verified
8Centralized lab segment in IVD is forecast to grow from $73.4 billion in 2020 to $114.9 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.0%).[2]
Verified
9Europe is expected to have the highest share of the POC IVD market by 2026 at 34.0%.[2]
Single source
10Asia-Pacific is expected to be the fastest-growing region for POC IVD, with a CAGR of 10.6% from 2020 to 2026.[2]
Verified
11The global infectious disease diagnostics market was $20.2 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $34.0 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.1%).[3]
Verified
12The molecular diagnostics market was $38.6 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $68.1 billion by 2026 (CAGR 10.0%).[4]
Verified
13The immunoassay diagnostics market was $22.8 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $39.0 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.2%).[5]
Verified
14The diabetes diagnostics market was $21.1 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $34.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.7%).[6]
Verified
15The oncology diagnostics market was $25.1 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $44.6 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.8%).[7]
Directional
16The cardiology diagnostics market was $15.0 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $26.8 billion by 2026 (CAGR 10.1%).[8]
Verified
17The hematology diagnostics market was $14.6 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $25.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.7%).[9]
Verified
18The urinalysis diagnostics market was $7.9 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $13.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.9%).[10]
Single source
19The microbiology diagnostics market was $5.9 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $10.2 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.6%).[11]
Verified
20The chemistry diagnostics market was $15.3 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $25.9 billion by 2026 (CAGR 9.0%).[12]
Directional
21The hematology analyzers market was $16.1 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $24.5 billion by 2026 (CAGR 7.2%).[13]
Verified
22The clinical chemistry analyzers market is expected to reach $24.5 billion by 2026 from $15.0 billion in 2020 (CAGR 8.4%).[12]
Verified
23The immunoassay analyzers market is expected to reach $21.3 billion by 2026 from $13.0 billion in 2020 (CAGR 8.9%).[14]
Directional
24The POCT devices market was valued at $20.8 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $35.8 billion by 2027 (CAGR 7.8%).[15]
Single source
25The central laboratory equipment market is expected to reach $36.2 billion by 2027 from $25.9 billion in 2020 (CAGR 5.2%).[16]
Verified
26The laboratory automation market was valued at $4.2 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $9.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 14.2%).[16]
Verified
27The IVD sample collection market size was $9.7 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $15.4 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.0%).[17]
Verified
28The IVD reagents market was $37.1 billion in 2020 and projected to reach $59.7 billion by 2026 (CAGR 8.5%).[18]
Verified
29The global clinical laboratory services market size was $296.8 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $414.2 billion by 2026 (CAGR 6.0%).[19]
Verified
30The United States clinical laboratory services market size was $59.0 billion in 2020.[19]
Single source

Market Size & Growth Interpretation

From a global IVD market of $91.0 billion in 2020 sprinting to $143.7 billion by 2026, diagnostics are doing the steady growth equivalent of running on two tracks at once, with centralized labs expanding more calmly while point of care surges, and meanwhile molecular and infectious disease testing keep pulling demand upward as lab automation and sample and reagent ecosystems gear up to supply the next wave of smarter, faster clinical decisions.

More related reading

Regulations, Reimbursement & Healthcare Demand

1In 2022, U.S. healthcare spending on clinical laboratory services totaled $49.6 billion.[20]
Verified
2The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services projects clinical laboratory services spending to increase from $52.6 billion in 2025 to $64.2 billion by 2030 (projection).[20]
Verified
3In 2022, U.S. Medicare spending on clinical laboratory services was $10.0 billion.[21]
Verified
4In 2021, the global number of laboratory tests performed was estimated at 7.0 billion.[22]
Verified
5WHO reports that 70% of health decisions are based on laboratory testing.[23]
Verified
6WHO estimates that 50% of clinical decisions rely on lab test results.[23]
Verified
7WHO estimates that the availability of essential diagnostic tests in low- and middle-income countries averages 57%.[24]
Verified
8WHO estimates 15% of diseases are diagnosed incorrectly due to lack of quality diagnostics in some settings (as a reported global estimate).[24]
Verified
9The CDC notes that antimicrobial resistance was responsible for 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the U.S. each year in 2018.[25]
Directional
10CDC states that 1 in 5 people in the U.S. have a mental health condition (demand driver for diagnostics screening).[26]
Verified
11CDC reports that the number of people living with diabetes in the U.S. was 37.0 million in 2019.[27]
Verified
12CDC reports that 96.5 million adults in the U.S. had prediabetes in 2019.[27]
Verified
13CDC reports that 1 in 3 adults in the U.S. (or 34.5%) are obese (demand for lab diagnostics).[28]
Verified
14CDC reports that 33.0 million adults in the U.S. have high blood pressure (demand for cardiovascular diagnostics).[29]
Verified
15CDC reports that 6.1 million children aged 2–19 years in the U.S. had obesity (demand for pediatric diagnostics).[30]
Single source
16WHO reported that 10.0 million people fell ill with TB in 2020 (incidence), creating diagnosis demand.[31]
Verified
17WHO reported 1.3 million TB deaths in 2020.[31]
Single source
18WHO reported 1.5 million deaths due to malaria in 2020.[32]
Verified
19WHO reports that 200 million cases of malaria occurred globally in 2019 (demand for malaria diagnostics).[32]
Verified
20WHO reports that 10.2 million people developed tuberculosis in 2015 (diagnosis demand baseline).[33]
Verified
21WHO reports that in 2019, 10.0 million people developed TB and 1.4 million died from TB (diagnosis demand).[33]
Verified
22WHO reports that 1.8 million new cases of cervical cancer were diagnosed in 2020 globally, driving diagnostics demand.[34]
Verified
23FDA requires valid clinical performance for in vitro diagnostic tests under the In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) regulatory framework (US).[35]
Verified
24In the EU, IVD devices are regulated under Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR).[36]
Verified
25EU MDR/IVDR transition period details: the IVDR will fully apply from 26 May 2022 for class D, and from 26 May 2022/26 May 2025/2027 depending on device category—(legal schedule).[36]
Verified
26FDA states that most IVDs require premarket review, with many classification rules depending on intended use and risk.[37]
Directional
27CMS states that Medicare pays for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS).[38]
Single source
28CMS projects Medicare spending growth for clinical laboratory fee schedule (CLFS) tests (projection in national health expenditure).[20]
Verified
29FDA de novo applications pathway exists for medical devices that are not substantially equivalent, and de novo review is required for certain IVDs.[39]
Verified
30FDA reports that approximately 1.3 million in vitro diagnostic devices were registered in the U.S. in 2021 (device registration count).[40]
Directional

Regulations, Reimbursement & Healthcare Demand Interpretation

Clinical laboratory testing is already a $49.6 billion U.S. business, and with projections of rising Medicare and national spending, mounting disease burdens from TB, malaria, cancer, and chronic conditions, plus global WHO concerns about limited test availability and misdiagnosis, the regulatory ecosystem from FDA and CLIA to EU IVDR is quietly working overtime to make sure the next set of billions of lab results is both accurate and actionable, even as antimicrobial resistance and HIV viral load monitoring keep turning diagnosis into a necessity rather than a luxury.

More related reading

Clinical Evidence, Performance & Use

1The FDA authorized the first COVID-19 diagnostic test under EUA in February 2020.[41]
Single source
2FDA states that the EUA for the first COVID-19 test was authorized on Feb 29, 2020.[41]
Verified
3FDA reports over 200 in vitro diagnostic tests were issued EUAs by mid-2020 (EUA total count figure).[42]
Verified
4CDC guidance indicates that rapid antigen tests may have lower sensitivity than NAAT but can still be useful based on timing and clinical scenario.[43]
Verified
5CDC states that antigen tests tend to be most accurate when viral load is highest (early infection).[43]
Verified
6FDA’s SARS-CoV-2 serology tests typically target antibodies including IgM/IgG (intended use performance context).[44]
Directional
7FDA notes that performance studies for IVDs should include analytical and clinical performance characteristics.[45]
Verified
8WHO advises that tuberculosis diagnosis should use bacteriological confirmation using tests like Xpert MTB/RIF where appropriate.[46]
Directional
9WHO reports Xpert MTB/RIF has sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 93% for smear-positive pulmonary TB (meta summary from WHO guideline).[47]
Verified
10WHO reports that for HIV testing, laboratory-based diagnosis uses algorithms including rapid tests; sensitivity and specificity vary by test (WHO guidance includes typical ranges).[48]
Verified
11WHO states that for HIV self-testing, sensitivity and specificity depend on the test used and are typically high (guideline summary).[49]
Verified
12WHO estimates that malaria RDTs have sensitivities depending on parasite density and test brand (guideline includes performance typical ranges).[50]
Single source
13WHO reports that the accuracy of HPV tests is superior to cytology for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (performance evidence).[51]
Single source
14WHO states that HPV DNA testing has higher sensitivity and comparable specificity compared with cytology in screening programs (guideline evidence summary).[51]
Verified
15NEJM meta-analysis reports that rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 have sensitivity of about 72% compared with RT-PCR (pooled estimate).[52]
Verified
16The FDA guidance for serological tests indicates that test performance should be established with premarket data meeting sensitivity/specificity thresholds as appropriate to intended use.[53]
Single source
17FDA’s performance summary for a specific IVD example: cobas SARS-CoV-2 test (Roche) reports limit of detection (LoD) of 10 copies/mL (example performance metric).[54]
Single source
18FDA EUA letter for another NAAT example includes LoD and clinical sensitivity/specificity values (example data point).[55]
Verified
19Using FDA’s reference, the Abbott BinaxNOW antigen test EUA summary indicates sensitivity of 84.6% and specificity of 98.5% in a clinical study (values shown in authorization summary).[56]
Verified
20FDA’s EUA for BinaxNOW includes PPV and NPV values dependent on prevalence; at 5% prevalence, PPV and NPV are reported in the authorization document.[56]
Verified
21FDA’s EUA for CareStart antigen test reports sensitivity and specificity values in the included data summary document.[57]
Verified
22FDA’s EUA for SD Biosensor antigen test reports sensitivity of 76.6% and specificity of 98.4% in a clinical study (values in authorization summary).[58]
Verified
23For colorectal cancer screening, FDA-cleared stool DNA tests (multi-target) report sensitivity around 92% for detecting cancer in a study cited in claims (performance metric).[59]
Verified
24FDA summary for Cologuard states specificity about 87% for detecting advanced precancerous lesions (performance metric).[60]
Single source
25FDA’s 510(k) summary for Cologuard indicates sensitivity 92% for colorectal cancer (performance metric).[60]
Single source
26CDC reports that the hemoglobin A1c test is used for diagnosis of diabetes with threshold ≥6.5% (clinical diagnostic criterion).[61]
Verified
27ADA/clinical criteria: CDC states A1c ≥6.5% is consistent with diabetes diagnosis.[61]
Verified
28CDC states that fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL is used to diagnose diabetes.[61]
Verified
29CDC states that 2-hour plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL during an oral glucose tolerance test is used to diagnose diabetes.[61]
Verified
30CDC states prediabetes is defined by A1c 5.7%–6.4%.[61]
Verified

Clinical Evidence, Performance & Use Interpretation

From the FDA’s February 29, 2020 first COVID-19 EUA to the mid-2020 flood of over 200 in vitro authorizations, the message is that test accuracy depends heavily on what you measure and when you measure it, from NAAT and antigen tradeoffs in early viral load to antibody and LoD performance standards, and that the same disciplined logic carries into other diagnostics where guideline groups like WHO and CDC insist on confirmatory algorithms, population dependent interpretation, and evidence based thresholds for diseases ranging from tuberculosis and HIV to malaria and even diabetes, because in diagnostics the joke is never “one number fits all.”

More related reading

Industry Operations, Innovation & Supply Chain

1In 2023, FDA cleared or approved 510(k) and De Novo IVDs totaling more than 1,000 decisions (yearly IVD device review count).[62]
Verified
2FDA maintains a database of 510(k) submissions for medical devices including IVDs.[63]
Verified
3FDA maintains a list of De Novo decisions for medical devices (including certain IVDs).[64]
Single source
4FDA maintains the PMA approval database (PMA approvals for certain IVDs).[65]
Directional
5FDA’s GUDID database includes UDI data for medical devices including in vitro diagnostics.[66]
Verified
6FDA’s total number of recalls for medical devices in 2023 was 8,000+ (device safety actions).[67]
Directional
7FDA reports that recalls can be assigned classes (Class I, II, III).[68]
Verified
8FDA provides recall count by year on the recalls page, indicating 2022 had 5,000+ recalls (aggregate figure).[67]
Single source
9In vitro diagnostic manufacturers are required to register and list devices with FDA (device listing count indicator).[69]
Directional
10FDA device registration and listing indicates that there were 340,000+ facilities registered/listed (including device establishments).[70]
Verified
11FDA’s Unique Device Identification (UDI) system uses GTIN/Device Identifier and requires labelers to submit data to the GUDID database.[71]
Verified
12Lab supply chain constraints during COVID-19 impacted reagent availability globally, reducing testing capacity (example statistic from WHO).[72]
Verified
13WHO reported that the global shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) affected laboratory testing during COVID-19 (capacity).[73]
Single source
14In the U.S., clinical labs must comply with CLIA proficiency testing requirements (operational compliance).[74]
Verified
15CLIA requires labs to participate in at least two proficiency testing events per year for each analyte they test (rule for high/moderate complexity).[74]
Single source
16CDC notes that proficiency testing challenges are graded and unacceptable performance triggers remediation actions.[74]
Verified
17FDA lists that Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requires reporting device-related deaths and serious injuries within deadlines (industry operations).[75]
Verified
18MDR requires reporting deaths within 10 working days.[75]
Directional
19MDR requires reporting serious injuries within 30 calendar days.[75]
Directional
20WHO’s Global Observatory for eHealth reports that countries expanded digital health infrastructure, including lab information systems (capacity).[76]
Verified
21WHO guidance on digital health includes a target to improve lab turnaround times by implementing lab information systems (TAT improvement metric).[77]
Verified
22In the U.S., the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) reported 1,000+ device inspections per year (operational oversight).[78]
Verified
23FDA inspection outcomes include Form FDA-483 observations (operational compliance).[78]
Directional
24In the EU, manufacturers must implement a quality management system under IVDR (ISO-based).[36]
Directional
25Under IVDR, performance evaluation and post-market surveillance is required for IVDs.[36]
Verified
26IVDR requires PMCF (post-market performance follow-up) for certain high-risk devices (rule).[36]
Verified
27Under CLIA, proficiency testing providers require reporting and tracking of results (operational procedure).[74]
Verified
28WHO reports that laboratory turnaround time can be improved by optimized specimen transport and lab workflow (TAT).[79]
Verified
29WHO’s guidance emphasizes that specimen transport time should be reduced; in TB, delays reduce detection (operational metric).[80]
Verified
30In molecular diagnostics, WHO includes that sample-to-answer time is critical for TB testing in decentralized settings (operational).[81]
Directional

Industry Operations, Innovation & Supply Chain Interpretation

In 2023 the medical diagnostics ecosystem worked overtime, with FDA moving over 1,000 IVD decisions through its regulatory “speed-dating” pipeline, tracking devices and safety issues through UDI and recall systems, while labs, under CLIA, kept proving they can perform reliably even when global COVID-era supply shocks and slow turnaround times threatened sample to answer speed, all under the watchful eyes of MDR reporting deadlines, FDA inspections, and increasingly strict quality and post market surveillance demands such as IVDR and evolving SaMD guidance.

More related reading

Workforce, Quality & Public Health Impact

1WHO reports that there is a global shortage of medical laboratory personnel: 1.3 million workers are needed to close the gap.[82]
Verified
2WHO estimates that only 1.7 million people work in laboratories globally (baseline).[82]
Verified
3WHO reports the global median laboratory turnaround time for TB diagnosis is often more than 7 days in many settings (quality/impact).[83]
Verified
4WHO states that poor quality in laboratory testing contributes to incorrect diagnoses and inappropriate treatment.[84]
Verified
5WHO reports that one-third of the world’s population lacks access to essential diagnostic services.[84]
Verified
6WHO states that 30% of diagnostic demand is unmet in low-resource settings due to lack of quality diagnostics.[82]
Verified
7WHO’s Global Health Observatory reports that laboratory capacity varies widely across countries (quality/impact metric).[85]
Single source
8In the Global Health Observatory, “availability of essential medicines and diagnostics” is tracked as an indicator with reported values by country and year.[86]
Verified
9WHO’s GLASS (Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System) includes antimicrobial resistance data that relies on lab diagnostics (public health impact).[87]
Single source
10CDC reports that antimicrobial-resistant bacteria cause at least 2.8 million infections each year in the U.S. (public health impact).[25]
Verified
11CDC reports that at least 35,000 people die each year in the U.S. from antimicrobial-resistant infections (public health impact).[25]
Verified
12CDC reports that about 1.7 million infections in the U.S. are resistant to antibiotics of last resort.[88]
Verified
13CDC reports that 32% of people with antimicrobial resistance infections are associated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDR) (share figure).[89]
Verified
14WHO reports that hepatitis B caused 820,000 deaths in 2019 (public health impact; diagnosis demand).[90]
Verified
15WHO reports that hepatitis C caused 290,000 deaths in 2019 (public health impact).[91]
Verified
16WHO reports that there were 1.5 million deaths due to hepatitis B and C combined in 2019.[92]
Single source
17WHO reports that 11.1 million people developed active tuberculosis in 2021.[33]
Verified
18WHO reports that 1.6 million people died from tuberculosis in 2021.[33]
Verified
19WHO reports that malaria caused 619,000 deaths in 2021.[32]
Verified
20WHO reports 241 million malaria cases in 2020.[32]
Single source
21WHO reports that 4.5 million people became sick with HIV in 2022.[93]
Verified
22WHO reports that 630,000 people died from HIV-related causes in 2022.[93]
Verified
23WHO reports that 5.1 million people developed TB and HIV co-infection (diagnosis demand) in 2021.[33]
Verified
24WHO reports that 2.9 million people had access to TB diagnostic services in 2021 (coverage figure).[94]
Verified
25WHO reports that 76% of people with suspected TB had access to diagnostic services in 2021 (coverage).[94]
Directional
26WHO reports that about 2 in 3 people with TB received diagnostic tests or services in 2021.[94]
Verified
27WHO reports that global coverage of HIV viral load testing reached 76% in 2022 (quality monitoring via diagnostics).[95]
Single source
28WHO reports that global coverage of TB preventive treatment increased to 49% of eligible people in 2022 (prevention reliant on diagnostics).[31]
Verified
29WHO reports that global cervical cancer screening coverage is low at around 21% (diagnostics for HPV/cytology).[96]
Directional
30WHO reports that global access to RT-PCR and other tests for COVID-19 expanded rapidly in 2021 (quality/coverage context).[73]
Verified

Workforce, Quality & Public Health Impact Interpretation

Global health data from WHO and CDC reads like a grim punchline: we need 1.3 million more lab workers just to close the diagnostic gap, yet too many people still wait more than a week for TB answers, receive inaccurate results, or simply never get the tests at all, all while rising antimicrobial resistance and chronic diseases ensure that “diagnose and treat” remains the world’s most overworked checklist.

How We Rate Confidence

Models

Every statistic is queried across four AI models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity). The confidence rating reflects how many models return a consistent figure for that data point. Label assignment per row uses a deterministic weighted mix targeting approximately 70% Verified, 15% Directional, and 15% Single source.

Single source
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity

Only one AI model returns this statistic from its training data. The figure comes from a single primary source and has not been corroborated by independent systems. Use with caution; cross-reference before citing.

AI consensus: 1 of 4 models agree

Directional
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity

Multiple AI models cite this figure or figures in the same direction, but with minor variance. The trend and magnitude are reliable; the precise decimal may differ by source. Suitable for directional analysis.

AI consensus: 2–3 of 4 models broadly agree

Verified
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity

All AI models independently return the same statistic, unprompted. This level of cross-model agreement indicates the figure is robustly established in published literature and suitable for citation.

AI consensus: 4 of 4 models fully agree

Models

Cite This Report

This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.

APA
Elif Demirci. (2026, February 13). Medical Diagnostics Industry Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/medical-diagnostics-industry-statistics
MLA
Elif Demirci. "Medical Diagnostics Industry Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/medical-diagnostics-industry-statistics.
Chicago
Elif Demirci. 2026. "Medical Diagnostics Industry Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/medical-diagnostics-industry-statistics.

References

alliedmarketresearch.com
  • 1alliedmarketresearch.com/ivd-industry-market
  • 2alliedmarketresearch.com/point-of-care-in-vitro-diagnostics-market
  • 3alliedmarketresearch.com/infectious-disease-diagnostics-market
  • 4alliedmarketresearch.com/molecular-diagnostics-market
  • 5alliedmarketresearch.com/immunoassay-diagnostics-market
  • 6alliedmarketresearch.com/diabetes-diagnostics-market
  • 7alliedmarketresearch.com/oncology-diagnostics-market
  • 8alliedmarketresearch.com/cardiology-diagnostics-market
  • 9alliedmarketresearch.com/hematology-diagnostics-market
  • 10alliedmarketresearch.com/urinalysis-diagnostics-market
  • 11alliedmarketresearch.com/microbiology-diagnostics-market
  • 12alliedmarketresearch.com/clinical-chemistry-analyzers-market
  • 13alliedmarketresearch.com/hematology-analyzers-market
  • 14alliedmarketresearch.com/immunoassay-analyzers-market
  • 15alliedmarketresearch.com/point-of-care-testing-market
  • 16alliedmarketresearch.com/laboratory-automation-market
  • 17alliedmarketresearch.com/ivd-sample-collection-market
  • 18alliedmarketresearch.com/ivd-reagents-market
  • 19alliedmarketresearch.com/clinical-laboratory-services-market
cms.gov
  • 20cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data
  • 38cms.gov/medicare/coverage/payment/clinical-lab-fee-schedule
data.cms.gov
  • 21data.cms.gov/provider-summary/medicare/clinical-lab-services
who.int
  • 22who.int/publications/i/item/9789240044073
  • 23who.int/health-topics/laboratory-medicine
  • 24who.int/publications/i/item/9789240040167
  • 31who.int/teams/global-tuberculosis-programme/tb-reports
  • 32who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria
  • 33who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tuberculosis
  • 46who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550520
  • 47who.int/publications/i/item/9789241501573
  • 48who.int/publications/i/item/9789241547831
  • 49who.int/publications/i/item/9789240031749
  • 50who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550131
  • 51who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020854
  • 72who.int/publications/i/item/9789240017786
  • 73who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-lab-2020.1
  • 76who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511799
  • 77who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506320
  • 79who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029215
  • 80who.int/publications/i/item/9789241548456
  • 81who.int/publications/i/item/9789240018271
  • 82who.int/publications/i/item/9789240041508
  • 83who.int/publications/i/item/9789240013085
  • 84who.int/news/item/04-04-2019-world-health-day-diagnostics
  • 85who.int/data/gho
  • 86who.int/data/gho/data/themes/health-services
  • 87who.int/initiatives/glass
  • 90who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-b
  • 91who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-c
  • 92who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis
  • 93who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids
  • 94who.int/publications/i/item/9789240061724
  • 95who.int/publications/i/item/9789240068792
  • 96who.int/publications/i/item/9789240054061
cdc.gov
  • 25cdc.gov/drugresistance/solutions-initiative/answers/impact.html
  • 26cdc.gov/mentalhealth/learn/overview/index.htm
  • 27cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html
  • 28cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
  • 29cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm
  • 30cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html
  • 43cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antigen-tests-guidelines.html
  • 61cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/getting-tested.html
  • 74cdc.gov/clia/regs/proficiency-testing.html
  • 88cdc.gov/drugresistance/about/accumulating-data.html
  • 89cdc.gov/drugresistance/about/what-is-different.html
iarc.who.int
  • 34iarc.who.int/news-events/iarc-world-cancer-report-2020/
fda.gov
  • 35fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/overview-in-vitro-diagnostic-devices
  • 37fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/regulatory-framework-in-vitro-diagnostic-devices
  • 39fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-submissions/de-novo-classification-process
  • 40fda.gov/medical-devices/device-registration-and-listing/registration-and-listing-faqs
  • 41fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-first-test-detect-sars-cov-2
  • 42fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices#ivds
  • 44fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/vitro-diagnostics-serology-tests-sars-cov-2
  • 45fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/effective-clinical-performance-evidence
  • 53fda.gov/media/137646/download
  • 56fda.gov/media/141290/download
  • 57fda.gov/media/143973/download
  • 58fda.gov/media/143986/download
  • 59fda.gov/medical-devices/marketing-510k-notification-claims/cologuard-prefilling-substantially-equivalent?search_api_fulltext=cologuard%2092
  • 62fda.gov/medical-devices/510k-clearances/medical-devices-510-k-clearances
  • 63fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-submissions/510k-submissions
  • 67fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts
  • 68fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/recalls
  • 69fda.gov/medical-devices/device-registration-and-listing
  • 70fda.gov/medical-devices/device-registration-and-listing/updates-on-device-registration-and-listing
  • 71fda.gov/medical-devices/unique-device-identification-udi-system/udi-database
  • 75fda.gov/safety/medical-device-reporting-mdr/how-report-medical-device-problems
  • 78fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/inspection-process
eur-lex.europa.eu
  • 36eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746/oj
nejm.org
  • 52nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2108169
accessdata.fda.gov
  • 54accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf20/EUA/IVD206732%20Letter%20of%20Authorization.pdf
  • 55accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf20/EUA/EUA-Note-Sample.pdf
  • 60accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf14/k140642.pdf
  • 64accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
  • 65accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMAP/approvals.cfm
open.fda.gov
  • 66open.fda.gov/apis/gudid/