Search Results

A powder-free patient examination glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the examiner's hand or finger to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

The Powder-Free, Natural Color, Latex Examination Gloves, Non-Sterile meets all the requirements of ASTM standard D 3578-01a22 and FDA 1000 ml Water Leak Test.

The provided documents describe the performance testing of "BPG Latex Examination Gloves" (Powder-Free, Natural Color, Latex Examination Gloves, Non-Sterile) to demonstrate substantial equivalence for a 510(k) submission.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

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

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

• The documents do not explicitly state the sample sizes used for the individual tests (e.g., how many gloves were tested for pinholes, or how many rabbits were used for biocompatibility testing).
• The data provenance is retrospective, as these are reports generated to demonstrate compliance with existing standards. The country of origin for the data is implied to be Malaysia, where the submitter, Best Putra Gloves Sdn Bhd, is located.

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

• This question is not applicable in this context. For medical devices like examination gloves, the "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized national and international standards (e.g., ASTM standards, FDA regulations). Performance is measured objectively against these established criteria, not by expert consensus on specific cases, which is more typical for diagnostic AI devices.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• This question is not applicable. As explained above, the assessment is against objective, predefined standards, not through an adjudication process involving human experts for discrete "cases."

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:

• This question is not applicable. The device is a medical glove, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI-related effect sizes are irrelevant to its evaluation.

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

• This question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical glove and does not involve an algorithm. Performance tests directly measure the physical and chemical properties of the glove.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• The ground truth used is based on established industry standards and regulatory requirements. Specifically, this includes:
  • ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards (e.g., D 3578-01a2, D 6124-05, D 5712-99) for dimensions, physical properties, pinhole freedom, powder amount, and water-soluble protein content.
  • FDA regulations (e.g., CFR 800.20 for pinholes, and the FDA 1000 ml Water Leak Test).
  • Standard biocompatibility testing protocols (Primary Skin Irritation in Rabbits, Dermal Sensitization).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This question is not applicable. Medical gloves are not typically "trained" in the way an AI model is. The product is manufactured and then tested for compliance with specifications. There isn't a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The manufacturing process itself is continuously monitored to ensure quality.

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

• This question is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8. The "ground truth" for glove manufacturing would be the established manufacturing specifications and quality control parameters derived from the standards mentioned above.

Ask a specific question about this device