Compara mètodes

	Estudi Adaptatiu de Fase IV	Estudi Pragmàtic de Fase IV
Camp	Epidemiologia	Epidemiologia
Família	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Any d'origen	1990s–2000s (regulatory formalization of adaptive Phase IV designs)	1967 (pragmatic concept); 2000s (pragmatic Phase IV formalized)
Autor original	Adaptive design principles developed by multiple statisticians; Phase IV framework established by regulatory bodies (FDA, EMA) in the late 20th century	Schwartz & Lellouch (explanatory vs. pragmatic distinction, 1967); PRECIS framework by Thorpe et al. (2009)
Tipus	Adaptive post-marketing clinical study design	Observational / interventional hybrid study design
Font seminal	Chow, S. C., & Chang, M. (2008). Adaptive Design Methods in Clinical Trials. Chapman and Hall/CRC. ISBN: 978-1584889625	Thorpe, K. E., Zwarenstein, M., Oxman, A. D., Treweek, S., Furberg, C. D., Altman, D. G., ... & Chalkidou, K. (2009). A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(5), 464-475.
Àlies	adaptive post-marketing surveillance study, adaptive pharmacovigilance study, adaptive Phase IV trial, adaptive post-approval study	pragmatic post-marketing study, real-world phase IV trial, pragmatic pharmacovigilance study, pragmatic post-approval study
Relacionats	6	5
Resum	An Adaptive Phase IV study is a post-marketing surveillance study conducted after a drug or intervention has received regulatory approval, augmented with pre-specified adaptive design elements that allow pre-planned modifications to the study protocol in response to accumulating data. These modifications may include sample size re-estimation, endpoint adjustments, or population enrichment, all governed by statistical rules set before the study begins, preserving scientific integrity while increasing efficiency.	A pragmatic Phase IV study is a post-marketing investigation conducted under routine clinical conditions to evaluate a drug or device's real-world effectiveness, long-term safety, and comparative performance. Unlike the controlled Phase III environment, it intentionally minimizes protocol restrictions — broad eligibility criteria, standard-of-care comparators, and naturalistic follow-up — to generate evidence directly applicable to everyday clinical practice.