Difference between review and verification


The difference between review and verification lies in their purposes and methodologies:

- **Review** involves evaluating the suitability, adequacy, or effectiveness of an object to achieve established objectives. It is a process of determining whether the design or product meets the required standards. Reviews can occur throughout the design phase and at key milestones in the development process. Examples include management reviews, design and development reviews, and peer reviews[4].

- **Verification** ensures that specified requirements have been fulfilled by providing objective evidence. This can involve inspections, testing, reviewing documents, and performing alternative calculations. Verification occurs after the completion of development stages, prior to validation, to confirm that the product meets all specified design and requirement specifications[4].

In summary, review evaluates the design's ability to meet objectives, while verification confirms that the product meets specified requirements through objective evidence.

Does reviewer should be subject matter expert

A reviewer should be a subject matter expert in the specific domain or topic being reviewed. The key differences between a reviewer and a subject matter expert are:

- **Subject Matter Expertise**: A subject matter expert (SME) has deep, specialized knowledge and experience in the particular field or topic. They are considered authorities in that domain.

- **Review Role**: A reviewer, who may also be an SME, is responsible for evaluating the content, accuracy, and effectiveness of a product, process, or document against defined requirements or standards. The reviewer provides feedback and recommendations.

The main reasons why a reviewer should be a subject matter expert:

1. **Relevant Expertise**: An SME can provide informed, credible feedback based on their extensive knowledge of the subject area. This ensures the review is thorough and meaningful.

2. **Identification of Issues**: An SME can more readily identify technical inaccuracies, gaps, or problems that a non-expert may miss.

3. **Valuable Insights**: SMEs can offer strategic insights, best practices, and recommendations that improve the final product or process.

4. **Credibility**: Having an SME conduct the review lends greater credibility to the review process and its outcomes.

5. **Efficiency**: An SME can complete the review more efficiently since they already possess the necessary domain knowledge.

In summary, utilizing subject matter experts as reviewers is critical to ensuring the quality, accuracy, and effectiveness of the work being reviewed. Their specialized expertise is invaluable in identifying issues and providing meaningful feedback.

Role of verification in report review

The role of verification in report review is to confirm that the information presented in the report is accurate, complete, and meets the specified requirements. Some key aspects of the role of verification in report review include:

1. Confirming Accuracy: Verification ensures that the data, calculations, and conclusions in the report are factually correct and free of errors. This involves checking source data, re-performing analyses, and validating the logic and reasoning.

2. Validating Completeness: Verification checks that the report covers all the necessary information and addresses all the required elements as per the defined scope and objectives. This helps identify any gaps or missing components.

3. Ensuring Compliance: Verification confirms that the report adheres to relevant standards, guidelines, and organizational policies. This includes checking formatting, structure, and adherence to reporting requirements.

4. Identifying Improvements: The verification process can uncover opportunities to enhance the quality, clarity, and effectiveness of the report. Reviewers can provide feedback and recommendations for improvement.

5. Establishing Credibility: A thorough verification process lends greater credibility to the report's findings and conclusions, as it demonstrates the rigor and attention to detail applied.

6. Mitigating Risks: Verification helps catch and address any issues or discrepancies before the report is finalized and distributed, reducing the risk of errors, omissions, or misinterpretations.

In summary, the role of verification in report review is to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and compliance of the information presented, thereby enhancing the overall quality, reliability, and usefulness of the report.
difference between verification and review

The key differences between verification and review are:

1. Purpose:
   - Verification ensures that the product or information meets the specified requirements and is correct.
   - Review evaluates the suitability, adequacy, or effectiveness of a product or process to achieve established objectives.

2. Methodology:
   - Verification involves inspections, testing, document reviews, and alternative calculations to provide objective evidence.
   - Review is a more subjective process of evaluating design, content, and performance against standards.

3. Timing:
   - Verification occurs after development, prior to validation, to confirm the product meets requirements.
   - Review can happen throughout the design and development process at key milestones.

4. Expertise:
   - Verification is typically conducted by subject matter experts who have deep knowledge of the domain.
   - Reviewers may or may not be subject matter experts, but they provide an objective evaluation.

5. Outcome:
   - Verification confirms that the product is "built right" according to specifications.
   - Review determines if the "right product" is being built to meet user needs and objectives.

In summary, verification is focused on confirming correctness, while review is focused on evaluating suitability and effectiveness. Both play crucial and complementary roles in ensuring high-quality products and processes.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FDA describes detailed CAPA Procedure in Warning Letter

An FDA Warning Letter is a formal communication from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notifying a company or individual of regulatory violations. These typically describe observations made during an inspection and list violations found (referencing the specific sections of the FD&C Act, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and other applicable laws as appropriate). In addition, specific measures are listed that the recipient must take to remedy the violations. It does not go into great detail, especially not with regard to instructions on the desired procedure. In a Warning Letter issued to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (India) at the beginning of July, this is now different. It describes in great detail what the FDA considers to be appropriate CAPA measures in a specific case. What happened? The company was criticised for not adequately cleaning and maintaining the equipment used to manufacture drug products. According to the company's response, a defective
Read more

FDA Warning Letter Missing Ongoing Stability Studies for APIs

Company Antaria Pty. Ltd, Australia Synopsis  1.Inadequate Investigation  2. Own Analytal Methods used but proved to equivalent to USP methods 3.Annual Stability missed 1.Failure to adequately investigate and document out-of-specification results and implement appropriate corrective actions . Your firm manufactures API (b)(4) USP, labeled in part to be the active ingredient used in (b)(4). You failed to adequately investigate out-of-specification (OOS) test results. Specifically, your firm lacked adequate investigations and corrective actions for numerous OOS results obtained during laboratory testing of your API, including assay and loss on ignition (LOI) testing. The root causes were not clearly defined nor adequately documented, and lots with OOS results were released by your quality unit (QU). In your response, you state that staff turnover and insufficient staff training attributes to the lack of competency in good laboratory practices . Additionally, you state that you will rev
Read more

Understand ICH Q7

What is meant by ‘quality unit(s) independent from production The intent of the term ‘independent’ is to prevent any conflict of interest and ensure unbiased decision-making regarding quality-related decisions in the organization structure. The person in the quality unit who is responsible for final decision-making (e.g., batch release decision) should not have responsibilities for production activities [ICH Q7, 2.13]. Does ICH Q7 expect that the quality unit performs API release testing While the quality unit has responsibility for the release of the API, which includes oversight of the testing and results, ICH Q7 does not prescribe specifically who performs testing. ‘Quality control’ in the ICH Q7 Glossary [ICH Q7, 20] refers to the activities, not the organisational structure. For examples of quality responsibility related to testing and release, refer to [ICH Q7, 2.13, 2.22, and 11.12]. Appropriate laboratory controls should be followed [ICH Q7, 11.10, 16.10] regardless of who
Read more