Search Results

A patient examination gloves is a disposable device intended for medical purpose that is worn on the examiner's hand or fingers to prevent contamination between patient and examiner. In addition, these gloves were tested for use with chemotherapy drugs in accordance with ASTM D6978-05 Standard Practice for Assessment of Medical gloves to Permeation by Chemotherapy Drugs.

The subject device is single use, disposable gloves intended for medical purposes to be worn on the examiner's hands to prevent contamination between patient and examiner. The gloves are powder-free, ambidextrous with beaded cuff, blue colored, nitrile, and tested for use with chemotherapy drugs. The gloves are offered in four sizes: extra-small, small, medium, large, and extra-large.

The provided document describes the FDA 510(k) premarket notification for "Disposable Nitrile Powder-Free Examination Gloves (Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs)". This document is for a medical device (gloves), not an AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD). Therefore, the concepts of acceptance criteria for AI performance, training/test sets, ground truth establishment by experts, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or a sample size for training data are not applicable to this submission.

The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context refer to the physical and chemical performance standards for the gloves, particularly their resistance to chemotherapy drugs and biocompatibility.

Here's the information extracted from the provided text, tailored to the context of a physical medical device:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Disposable Nitrile Powder-Free Examination Gloves

The acceptance criteria for the Disposable Nitrile Powder-Free Examination Gloves are based on compliance with established international and national standards for medical gloves, particularly regarding their physical properties, freedom from holes, residual powder content, and resistance to permeation by chemotherapy drugs.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document describes material and performance testing, not a "test set" in the sense of an AI model's dataset. The "samples" refer to physical gloves selected for testing.

The provenance of the data is from laboratory testing conducted on the manufactured gloves. The specific country of origin for the testing itself is not explicitly stated, but the manufacturer is Shandong Maida Medical Technology Co.,Ltd. in China. The testing is prospective in the sense that newly manufactured gloves are tested to ensure they meet the standards.

• ASTM D5151 (Detection of Holes): Sample size for water leakage test: 125 gloves.
• ASTM D6319 (Dimensions & Physical Properties): Results are shown for multiple lots (e.g., Lot no.: 210515, 210518, 210520), indicating multiple samples were tested across different manufacturing batches. The exact number of gloves per lot for each physical test (e.g., tensile strength, elongation) is not specified but would be defined by the ASTM standard.
• ASTM D6978 (Chemotherapy Permeation): The results provide triplet values for Carmustine and Thio Tepa (e.g., 22.8(23.7, 22.8, 23.1)), suggesting three independent measurements were taken for these drugs. The standard itself specifies the number of replicates.
• Biocompatibility Testing: The number of animal subjects used for the animal irritation, sensitization, and systemic toxicity tests is not specified in the summary but would conform to the respective ISO standards.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

This section is not applicable as the evaluation involves standardized laboratory testing against defined physical and chemical properties, not human expert interpretation of subjective data or images. The "ground truth" is defined by the objective measurement results according to the specified ASTM and ISO standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are for resolving discrepancies in human expert assessments (e.g., in medical image interpretation). Here, numerical test results from standardized methods are directly compared against established quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

This is not applicable. MRMC studies are used to evaluate diagnostic imaging systems or AI tools where human readers are involved. This submission is for a physical medical glove.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

This is not applicable. This concept applies to AI/software performance. The device is a physical glove, not an algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is based on objective, quantitative measurements derived from standardized laboratory tests (bench testing) and biological responses observed in validated biocompatibility assays according to international standards (ASTM and ISO). This includes:

• Quantitative Thresholds: e.g., minimum tensile strength, maximum residual powder, minimum breakthrough time for chemotherapy drugs.
• Qualitative Observations (Biological): e.g., absence of irritation or sensitization, absence of systemic toxicity.
• Conformity to Standards: The device's performance is compared directly to the specified requirements within each standard (e.g., ASTM D6319-19 dimensions, physical properties).

One point of note is the cytotoxicity result (17.1% viability) which is below the 70% threshold, indicating cytotoxicity. The document addresses this by stating: "Analysis3: The proposed device is potentially cytotoxic, but all proposed devices are conducted the systemic toxicity test." And the systemic toxicity test showed "no evidence of systemic toxicity." This implies that despite the in vitro cytotoxicity, the manufacturer argues that in vivo systemic toxicity (which is generally considered a more critical endpoint for patient safety) was not observed, suggesting the findings are acceptable for the device's intended use according to the biocompatibility evaluation framework.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a physical device. The manufacturing process is controlled to produce gloves consistently, and batch testing ensures quality.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This is not applicable. As there is no training set, the establishment of ground truth for it is irrelevant. The manufacturing process is designed and verified to produce products meeting the specified design and performance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Disposable Nitrile Powder-Free Examination Gloves are disposable devices intended for medical purposes that are worn on the examiner's hands to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

The proposed device is Powder Free Disposable Nitrile Powder-Free Examination Gloves. The proposed device is blue. The design of proposed device is addressing the standards as ASTM D6124, ASTM D5151, and ASTM D6319. The proposed device is non-sterile.

The document provided is a 510(k) summary for Disposable Nitrile Powder-Free Examination Gloves. It details the safety and effectiveness information, comparing the proposed device to a legally marketed predicate device. The information provided heavily focuses on non-clinical performance testing rather than studies involving human readers or AI.

Based on the provided text, here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • For the hole detection test (ASTM D5151-06), the sample size specified in the acceptance criteria is 125 gloves. The actual results state that "no glove water leakage found," implying 125 gloves were tested.
  • For biocompatibility tests (ISO 10993 series), the specific number of animals or samples is not explicitly stated in the summary, but standard protocols for these tests involve specific sample sizes (e.g., animal groups for irritation/sensitization, cell cultures for cytotoxicity).
  • For material properties (tensile strength, elongation, dimensions), the results are provided for specific "Lot no." (e.g., 210515, 210518, 210520), suggesting samples were taken from these production lots. The exact sample size per lot for these physical tests is not detailed in the summary.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data beyond the manufacturer being Shandong Maida Medical Technology Co.,Ltd. in China. The studies are non-clinical performance tests, meaning they are not conducted on human subjects and therefore the concepts of "retrospective or prospective" as typically applied to clinical studies are not directly applicable. These are laboratory/bench tests to confirm product specifications.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

This is a new medical device submission for examination gloves, which is a Class I device. The "ground truth" for this type of device is established through adherence to recognized international and national standards (ISO, ASTM) for material properties, biocompatibility, and physical characteristics. There is no mention of "experts" in the context of human data interpretation or labeling for AI models. The "ground truth" here is the pass/fail criteria defined by these standards.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

Not applicable. This is not a study involving human interpretation or AI where adjudication of conflicting opinions would be necessary. The tests are based on objective measurements and established standard protocols.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

Not applicable. This submission is for medical examination gloves, which are physical devices, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies are not relevant.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or software device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

The ground truth for this device's performance is based on accepted international and national standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series for biocompatibility, ASTM D6124 for residual powder, ASTM D5151 for holes, ASTM D6319 for physical properties). The device's performance is compared against the specific numerical and qualitative criteria defined within these standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for a physical medical device like an examination glove. These are non-clinical performance tests to ensure the product meets manufacturing and safety specifications.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device