Search Results

The Synovasure Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test Kit is a qualitative visually read immunochromatographic assay for the detection of human host response proteins, Alpha Defensins 1-3, in the synovial fluid of adults with a total joint replacement who are being evaluated for revision surgery. The Synovasure Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test Kit results are intended to be used in conjunction with other clinical and diagnostic findings as an aid in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJ). The Synovasure Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test Kit is not intended to identify the etiology or severity of a PJI.

The Synovasure Alpha Defensin Control Kit is used in the Synovasure Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test Kit as assayed quality control samples to monitor performance and reliability of the Synovasure Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test Kit.

The Synovasure Alpha Defensin (AD) Lateral Flow (LF) Test Kit is an immunoassay for the detection of alpha defensin levels in the synovial fluid of patients with a potential PJI. Antibodies specific to alpha defensin bind host alpha defensin in the synovial fluid, become immobilized on the lateral flow test strip, and are detected as a colored line due to the use of a colloidal gold reporter.

This document describes the Synovasure Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test Kit and its performance.

The device is a qualitative, visually-read immunochromatographic assay for detecting human host response proteins, Alpha Defensins 1-3, in synovial fluid of adults with total joint replacement being evaluated for revision surgery. It is intended to aid in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) when used with other clinical and diagnostic findings. It does not identify the etiology or severity of PJI.

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

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

The provided document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative table format for the device's performance. Instead, it references a "Method comparison study to demonstrate equivalent performance between proposed device with modified cassette geometry and existing version of the Alpha Defensin Lateral Flow Test Device was performed." This implies that the acceptance criterion was "equivalent performance" to the predicate device. However, specific metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) and their target values are not provided within this summary.

Therefore, a table cannot be fully constructed from the provided text. To illustrate, if specific targets were present:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document mentions a "Method comparison study," but it does not specify the sample size for this study. It also does not provide information on the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective nature of the data).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications. Given that the device detects "human host response proteins" and aids in "diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) ... in conjunction with other clinical and diagnostic findings," the ground truth likely involves clinical diagnosis of PJI, which would typically be established by medical professionals. However, specifics are missing.

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

The document does not provide information on any adjudication method used for establishing the ground truth or evaluating the device's performance in the method comparison study.

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 device is described as a "qualitative visually read immunochromatographic assay" (a lateral flow test kit) and not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for image analysis. Therefore, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study evaluating human readers' improvement with AI assistance would not be applicable to this type of device, and no such study is mentioned.

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

This is a visually read test kit, implying a human-in-the-loop component for reading the test result. Therefore, a "standalone algorithm only" performance study would not be applicable in the same way it would be for an AI-driven image analysis algorithm. The "method comparison study" likely evaluates the performance of the device itself (including human interpretation) against a reference method or the predicate device.

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

The document states the device results "are intended to be used in conjunction with other clinical and diagnostic findings as an aid in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)." This strongly suggests that the ground truth for PJI diagnosis was established based on clinical diagnosis, which typically involves an expert consensus of various clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings, and potentially surgical/pathological confirmation. However, the specific components of the ground truth (e.g., specific clinical criteria, culture results, pathology reports) are not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document describes a "method comparison study" between the proposed device and an existing version. It does not mention a separate "training set" as would be typical for machine learning models. This is likely because the device is a conventional in-vitro diagnostic test, not an AI/ML-based device.

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

As there is no mention of a "training set" for an AI/ML model, this question is not applicable to the information provided. The "ground truth" for the performance evaluation set is implicitly clinical diagnosis of PJI, as discussed in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device