(50 days)
Syntron's QuikStrip One Step Phencyclidine (PCP) assay is a rapid, qualitative, competitive binding immunoassay for the determination of Phencyclidine (PCP) in urine at the cutoff level of 25 ng/ml. The test provides only preliminary data which should be confirmed by other methods such as gas chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (GC/MS). Clinical considerations and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are indicated6. Syntron's QuikStrip One Step Phencyclidine (PCP) Test is not intended to monitor drug levels, but only to screen urines for the presence of Phencyclidine (PCP) and its metabolites.
Syntron's QuikStrip One Step Phencyclidine (PCP) Test consists of a chromatographic absorbent device in which the drug or drug metabolites in the sample compete with a drug conjugate immobilized on a porous membrane support for the limited antibody sites. As the test sample flows up through the absorbent device, the labeled antibody-dye conjugate binds to the free drug in the specimen forming an antibody:antigen complex. This complex competes with immobilized antigen conjugate in the positive reaction zone and will not produce a magenta color band when the drug is above the detection level of 25 ng/ml. Unbound dye conjugate binds to the reagent in the control zone, producing a magenta color band, demonstrating that the reagents and device are functioning correctly.
This question is about a medical device called the "QuikStrip One Step Phencyclidine (PCP) Test" and the study that demonstrates it meets its acceptance criteria.
Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Performance Metric | Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Sensitivity (Agreement within positive samples) | High (ideally 100%) | 100% (against Syva EMIT® II, confirmed by GC/MS) |
| Relative Specificity (Agreement within negative samples) | High (ideally 100%) | 100% (against Syva EMIT® II, confirmed by GC/MS) |
| Accuracy | High (ideally 100%) | 100% (against Syva EMIT® II, confirmed by GC/MS) |
| False Positives | Low (ideally 0) | 2 false positives (due to PCP levels between 20-25 ng/ml by GC/MS) |
| False Negatives | Low (ideally 0) | 0 false negatives |
Note on Acceptance Criteria: The document mentions "The combined data yielded a relative sensitivity of 100%, a relative specificity of 100% with an accuracy of 100% when compared to Emit II® run at 25 ng/ml." While explicit "acceptance criteria" are not listed in a separate section, these reported performance values (100% for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) strongly imply that these were indeed the target acceptance criteria. The discussion of false positives and negatives further supports these implied criteria.
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Sample Size for Test Set: 286 samples (for the clinical trial).
- Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated regarding country of origin. The study is described as a "clinical trial" which typically implies prospective data collection, but it's not explicitly stated as prospective versus retrospective. It was conducted by a "Clinical Trial site."
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications
- Number of Experts: Not specified.
- Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The reference methods, Syva EMIT® II and GC/MS, are laboratory tests, implying trained personnel would have performed and interpreted them, but their specific expert qualifications are not detailed.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- Adjudication Method: Not explicitly described. The primary reference standard for confirmation was GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) at a 25 ng/ml cutoff. For the initial screening, the device was compared to Syva EMIT® II. Any positive samples by either screening method were confirmed by GC/MS. This suggests GC/MS served as the definitive "ground truth" and likely adjudicated discrepancies, but a formal adjudication process (e.g., 2+1) is not detailed.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done
- No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a rapid, qualitative immunoassay for PCP. Its output is a presence/absence (positive/negative) result, not highly subjective imaging or diagnostic interpretation that would typically involve multiple human readers. The comparison was between the device's performance and a predicate device (EMIT II) and a confirmatory method (GC/MS).
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
- Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The described testing of "Syntron's QuikStrip One Step Phencyclidine (PCP) Test" involves the device itself generating a result (a magenta color band or absence thereof) which is then interpreted as positive or negative. The performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) are reported for the device's output compared to established reference methods, without explicitly mentioning a human reader's interpretation enhancing or altering the device's direct output. The device itself is designed to provide qualitative results.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
- Type of Ground Truth: The primary and definitive ground truth used for confirmation was GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry), specifically at a cutoff of 25 ng/ml. This is an objective analytical chemistry method for identifying and quantifying substances. For initial comparison, Syva EMIT® II was also used as a reference.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
- Sample Size for Training Set: Not explicitly stated. The document describes "In-house testing" and "A clinical trial consisting of 286 samples." It's common for devices to undergo internal development and testing (which could constitute a training or development set), but the specific size and nature of such a set are not provided. The 286 samples are clearly described as part of the clinical trial for performance evaluation.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
- How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established: Not explicitly stated. If there was a distinct training set, the document doesn't detail how its ground truth was established. However, given that GC/MS was used for the clinical trial and "in-house testing," it is highly probable that GC/MS would have been used to establish ground truth for any internal development or training samples as well.
N/A