Search Results

Everyway Incontinence Stimulation System is intended to provide electrical stimulation and neuromuscular re-education for the purpose of rehabilitation of weak pelvic floor muscles for the treatment of stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence in women and to maintain urinary continence in women.

Everyway Incontinence Stimulation System ( Stimulator models EM-2400 and EM-5300 with Vaginal Probe models PR-02A, PR-04A and PR-14A )

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance, or any studies conducted on the "Everyway Incontinence Stimulation System." The document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA, which primarily states that the device has been found substantially equivalent to predicate devices and outlines regulatory requirements. It does not include details about specific performance metrics or clinical study results.

Ask a specific question about this device

TENS (For model EM-6000, EM-6100 & EM-6300) : intended for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the low back as well as upper and lower extremities (arm and/or leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household and work activities. (Choose TENS B/N/M/S1/S2 adjustable mode & TENS Modes P to P6 for EM-6300).

EMS (For model EM-6000, EM-6200 & EM-6300): intended to stimulate healthy muscles in order to improve or facilitate muscle performance. (Choose EMS C/S/A adjustable mode & EMS Modes P7 to P12 for EM-6300).

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain any information about acceptance criteria for a medical device or a study proving that a device meets those criteria. The document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a TENS/EMS device, confirming its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It discusses regulatory compliance and indications for use but does not detail performance acceptance criteria or specific study results to demonstrate those criteria are met.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table or answer the specific questions about sample sizes, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth, or training set details.

Ask a specific question about this device

TENS: intended for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the low back as well as upper and lower extremities (arm and/or leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household and work activities. (For EV-806: Choose TENS Modes B/N/M/SD1/SD2 adjustable mode).

EMS: intended to stimulate healthy muscles in order to improve or facilitate muscle performance. (For EV-806 : Choose EMS Modes C/S/A adjustable mode)

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding a Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator (TENS)/Electrical Muscle Stimulator (EMS) device. It confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the provided document does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria. The letter focuses on the regulatory clearance process and substantial equivalence, not on the technical performance evaluation of the device in the context of specific performance metrics or clinical study results.

Therefore, I cannot provide details for the following points based on the given input:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications
4. Adjudication method for the test set
5. If a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done
6. If a standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study was done
7. The type of ground truth used
8. The sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

The letter indicates that the device is intended for "temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles" (TENS) and "to stimulate healthy muscles in order to improve or facilitate muscle performance" (EMS). While these are the intended uses, there are no performance metrics or study details within this document to evaluate how well the device achieves these indications.

Ask a specific question about this device

TENS: intended for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the low back as well as upper and lower extremities (arm and/or leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household and work activities. (Choose TENS Modes B/N/M/SD1/SD2 as adjustable mode and P1 to P12 preset programs only for EV-906A).

EMS: intended to stimulate healthy muscles in order to improve or facilitate muscle performance. (Choose EMS Modes C/S/A as adjustable mode and P13 to P24 preset programs only for EV-906A).

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device (EV-906 & EV-906A OTC TENS/EMS Combination). This type of document is administrative and confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.

It does not contain information about:

1. Acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to a study. The letter states that the 510(k) submission was not re-reviewed for the administrative correction, and the original letter from Dec 19, 2019, simply states that the FDA "reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification... and have determined the device is substantially equivalent." This determination is based on a comparison to a predicate device, not on clinical performance acceptance criteria or a study proving performance against such criteria.
2. Sample size, data provenance, expert numbers, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth methods. These are details typically found in a clinical study report or a summary of safety and effectiveness, which are not part of a 510(k) clearance letter.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request using the provided input. The document confirms the regulatory clearance of a Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator (TENS) and Electrical Muscle Stimulator (EMS) device as substantially equivalent to a predicate, but it does not detail the specific performance studies, acceptance criteria, or methodology that your questions pertain to.

Ask a specific question about this device

A6 OTC Pain Relief TENS is intended for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the low back as well as upper and lower extremities (arm and/or leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household and work activities.

Not Found

It appears the provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called "A6 OTC Pain Relief TENS." This document grants market clearance based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device and outlines general controls and regulations.

However, the provided text does not contain any information regarding specific acceptance criteria, study methodologies, performance data, or details about clinical trials for the A6 OTC Pain Relief TENS device.

The questions you've asked (about acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, ground truth, MRMC studies, etc.) are typically found in a different type of FDA submission document, such as a De Novo request or a PMA application, or in a separate clinical study report. A 510(k) primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence, often through comparisons to an existing predicate device rather than extensive de novo clinical performance studies for a well-understood technology like TENS.

Therefore, I cannot provide answers to your specific questions based on the provided text. The document confirms the device's classification and indications for use, but not the detailed performance study information you're requesting.

Ask a specific question about this device

V2 OTC Pain Relief TENS is intended for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the low back as well as upper and lower extremities (arm and/or leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household and work activities.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "V2 OTC Pain Relief TENS" device (K182767) does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer your request.

The letter is a standard FDA clearance document. It confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device and outlines general regulatory provisions. It does not include:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Details about sample size, data provenance, or types of studies conducted (e.g., test set, training set).
• Information on expert establishment of ground truth, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies.
• Specifics on standalone algorithm performance or the type of ground truth used.

For a medical device like a TENS unit, the primary "study" proving it meets acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence typically involves demonstrating that its technological characteristics (e.g., electrical stimulation parameters, waveform, output intensity) are substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, and that it performs as intended for its indicated use (temporary pain relief). This is usually supported by:

• Bench testing: To confirm electrical output specifications.
• Performance testing: To ensure it functions as described.
• Biocompatibility testing: If applicable, for patient contact materials.
• Electrical safety and EMC testing: To comply with relevant standards.

The letter itself does not detail these specific tests or their results, nor does it refer to studies involving AI, image analysis, or complex algorithms that would require the kind of detailed information about ground truth, expert consensus, MRMC studies, or training/test sets that you are asking for. Your questions are highly relevant for AI/ML-based medical devices, but this document pertains to a traditional electrical stimulation device for pain relief.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about the study design using the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

TENS: intended for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the low back as well as upper and lower extremities (arm and/or leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household and work activities.

EMS: intended to stimulate healthy muscles in order to improve or facilitate muscle performance. The various types of muscle work that the EMS can impose on the stimulated muscles are able to improve or facilitate muscle performance. The EMS may therefore be considered a technique of muscle training.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator (TENS) and Electrical Muscle Stimulator (EMS) device (Model EM-5200). This type of device is an electrical stimulator, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or prognostic tool.

Therefore, the concepts of acceptance criteria, study data, ground truth, experts, and training/test sets as they relate to AI/ML device performance evaluation do not apply to this document.

The FDA clearance for TENS/EMS devices like this one is typically based on:

• Substantial Equivalence: Demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This often involves comparing technological characteristics (e.g., waveform, intensity, frequency, output modes) and performance data (e.g., electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, biocompatibility).
• Performance Testing: Benchtop testing to ensure the device meets its specifications and applicable IEC standards.
• Clinical Data (if necessary): In some cases, if the device has novel technology or a new indication, limited clinical data might be required, but it would focus on safety and effectiveness for pain relief (TENS) or muscle performance (EMS), not diagnostic accuracy or AI algorithm performance.

In summary, the information requested in your prompt (AI/ML-specific acceptance criteria, ground truth, expert review, training/test sets) is not present in this document because the device in question is a conventional electrical stimulator, not an AI/ML medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OTC Pain Relief TENS, model EV-804, is intended for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the low back as well as upper and lower extremities (arm and/or leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household and work activities

Not Found

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Everyway Medical Instruments Co., Ltd. EV-804 OTC Pain Relief TENS device. It details the device's classification, regulatory status, and intended use as a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator for pain relief.

However, the document does NOT contain any information regarding acceptance criteria, study methodologies, sample sizes, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, or any other details typically associated with the performance evaluation of a device, especially an AI/ML-driven one.

This is a standard 510(k) clearance letter, which means the device was found to be "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This equivalence is often based on existing technological characteristics and indications for use, rather than extensive, new performance studies that would require the type of detailed information requested in your prompt. For TENS devices, substantial equivalence is usually demonstrated through electrical performance testing, labeling review, and comparison to existing devices on the market, not through clinical studies akin to those for AI-powered diagnostics.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not present.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and data provenance: No such test set or data is described.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as no such test set or ground truth establishment is mentioned.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No, this is not mentioned. The device is a simple TENS unit, not an imaging or diagnostic AI.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The document is purely administrative regarding regulatory clearance and does not delve into the technical performance study details you're looking for, especially those related to AI/ML device validation.

Ask a specific question about this device

The S Series Electrodes (including S5105, S80120, SG4040, SG4368, SG5050, SG5075, SG50100, SG5795, SG60147, SG7090, & SG75D) are intended for use with transcutaneous neurostimulation devices as over the counter. Some common type of neurostimulation devices include, but are not limited to, TENS devices. Transcutaneous neurostimulation electrodes are passive devices serving as an interface between a patient's skin and a neurostimulation device.

Transcutaneous neurostimulation electrodes are passive devices serving as an interface between a patient's skin and a neurostimulation device.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance, study design, or other details related to a medical device study. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for "S Series Electrodes," indicating that the device has been deemed substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.

The information you are looking for (acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, etc.) would typically be found in a separate study report or regulatory submission, which is not included in this document.

Therefore, I cannot provide a response based on the given input as the requested information is absent.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Everyway EV-820 OTC Pain Relief TENS is intended for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the low back as well as upper and lower extremities (arm and/or leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household and work activities.

The Everyway EV-820 OTC Pain Relief TENS is a dual channel transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator used for pain relief by applying an electrical current to electrodes, which are attached on the user's skin. The output and waveform characteristic is fixed for every operation mode, only the intensity is adjustable within specified limit.

The Everyway EV-820 OTC Pain Relief TENS consists mainly of two parts: the stimulus generator, electrode. The stimulus generator generates the output current specified as the input of controller. The output port transmits the output current to the electrode, which is attached to the user's skin so as to transmit this stimulus current for pain relief.

The stimulation modes for Everyway EV-820 OTC Pain Relief TENS is pre-program modes with fixed pulse width, pulse rate, frequency. The timer and amplitude for each program are adjustable. This operation way is considered the simple design change from the pre-program modes of comparison clear model, existing 510(k) cleared devices, Low Back Pain Relief System/ Model EV-820(K110716). Every operation mode of Everyway EV-820 OTC Pain Relief TENS Syste has its individual stimulation operation cycle.

I am unable to provide a description of acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria from the provided document. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA to Everyway Medical Instruments Co., Ltd. regarding their Everyway EV-820 OTC Pain Relief TENS device.

Here's why I cannot fulfill your request based on the provided text:

• No specific acceptance criteria are stated: The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on regulatory classification, intended use, and technological characteristics. It does not define specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria for the device itself (e.g., pain reduction percentage, battery life benchmarks).
• No detailed study is presented to prove acceptance criteria: The document explicitly states: "No particular Clinical Test was conducted for Everyway EV-820 OTC Pain Relief TENS." It mentions compliance with voluntary standards (IEC 60601-2-10, IEC 60601-1, and IEC 60601-1-2) and software verification, which are non-clinical tests for safety and performance, but these are not presented as studies designed to prove specific acceptance criteria for the device's therapeutic effectiveness. The comparison tables provided highlight characteristics, not performance against acceptance criteria.
• The document is a regulatory submission, not a research paper: A 510(k) summary aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not to present a detailed clinical study proving device effectiveness against pre-defined acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving their fulfillment from this document.

Ask a specific question about this device