Search Filters

Search Results

Found 2 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K013262
    Date Cleared
    2002-01-22

    (113 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    880.6250
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The glove is disposable and intended for Medical purpose that is worn on the hand of healthcare and similar personnel to prevent contamination between the patient and the examiner.

    Device Description

    Polymer Coated Powderfree Latex Examination Gloves

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device. It's an FDA clearance letter and an "Indications for Use" statement, not a scientific study report. Therefore, it does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, device performance details, study design, or ground truth establishment.

    Here's why and what's missing:

    • Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: This document states the device (Polymer Coated Powder-Free Latex Examination Gloves) is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices. It does not present specific acceptance criteria (e.g., tensile strength, puncture resistance, barrier integrity) or reported device performance data against those criteria. Such data would typically be found in test reports submitted as part of the 510(k) application, but not in the FDA's clearance letter itself.

    • Study Details (Sample Size, Data Provenance, Experts, Adjudication, MRMC, Standalone, Ground Truth, Training Set): A 510(k) submission for examination gloves primarily relies on bench testing to demonstrate performance characteristics (like those related to barrier integrity and physical properties) and comparison to a predicate device for substantial equivalence. It is highly unlikely that the types of studies described in the prompt (e.g., MRMC comparative effectiveness studies, studies involving experts for ground truth, large-scale clinical trials with human readers) would be conducted or required for this type of Class I device.

      • For example, proving substantial equivalence for gloves typically involves testing attributes like:
        • Dimensional specifications
        • Tensile strength and elongation
        • Puncture resistance
        • Water leak test (for barrier integrity)
        • Protein content (for latex gloves)
        • Powder residue (for powder-free gloves)

      These tests are performed on a statistical sample of the manufactured gloves according to recognized standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO). The "ground truth" for these measurements is the physical measurement itself, not an expert consensus or pathology report.

    In summary, the provided document is a regulatory clearance and not a study report. It confirms the device's substantial equivalence but does not detail the specific performance criteria or the studies used to demonstrate compliance.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K013026
    Date Cleared
    2001-10-15

    (35 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    880.6250
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Powdered Latex Examination Gloves are worn on the hands of health care and Formilar personnel to prevent contamination between health care personnel and the patient.

    Device Description

    Not Found

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for "Powdered Latex Examination Gloves." It is a regulatory document and does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, study details, or device performance metrics typically associated with AI/ML-based medical devices.

    Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The document focuses on regulatory approval based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not on quantitative performance parameters or clinical study results as asked in your prompt.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1