Compare

    Two terms, side by side

    Pick any two terms to see definitions, context, pitfalls, and sources in parallel.

    Curated comparison tables

    In-depth, attribute-by-attribute tables for the most common MedTech term pairs. Each row is sourced from the linked term pages.

    Post-Market

    Post-Market Surveillance Plan

    In one line
    Documented plan describing PMS activities, data sources, methods, and review frequency.
    Definition
    MDR Annex III requires a PMS Plan covering proactive and reactive collection of clinical data, complaints, registries, literature, similar-device data, and trend analysis. Drives PSURs, PMS Reports, and PMCF Plans. The plan must also set out methods to assess the data, indicators and thresholds for benefit-risk reassessment, methods for complaint and trend analysis, communication with authorities and users, and links to CAPA and the PMCF plan. It is part of the technical documentation under Annex III and is reviewed by notified bodies. Under the IVDR, the equivalent plan covers post-market performance follow-up instead of PMCF.
    Why it matters
    A weak PMS Plan is a recurring Notified Body finding; reviewers want to see specific, measurable activities - not boilerplate.
    Common pitfalls
    • •A common pitfall is creating a generic PMS Plan that lacks specific, actionable tasks and measurable outcomes.
    • •Failing to integrate lessons learned from PMS activities back into risk management and device design is a significant oversight.
    • •Not allocating sufficient resources, both human and financial, to execute the PMS Plan effectively can lead to non-compliance.
    • •Misinterpreting "proactive" surveillance as merely collecting complaints, rather than actively seeking data, is a frequent mistake.
    • •Ignoring data from "similar devices" or publicly available information can result in an incomplete understanding of post-market risks.
    Open full page
    Select term B to compare.

    Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

    MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

    Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

    Common comparison patterns

    How to use this tool

    Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

    MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.