Search Results

EYE SEE™ Multipurpose Contact Lens Solution is indicated for use in the daily cleaning, removal of protein deposits, rinsing, chemical (not heat) disinfection, and storage of soft (hydrophilic) contact lenses, as recommended by your eye care practitioner.

The EYE SEE™ Multipurpose Solution is a sterile, isotonic, buffered, solution containing boric acid, sodium chloride, Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose (HPMC) as a lubricant, poloxamer 407 as a surfactant, disodium edetate as chelating agent, purified water and preserved with polyhexanide.

The EYE SEE™ Multipurpose Solution is a clear, colorless solution packaged in plastic bottles with controlled dropper tips.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text, focusing on the clinical study mentioned:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document primarily focuses on non-clinical and clinical studies demonstrating the overall safety and efficacy for all intended uses. While specific quantitative acceptance criteria for each test are not explicitly detailed in the summary, the overall outcome of the clinical study is described.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size (Clinical Study): 60 subjects
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The study was conducted "Following an approved FDA clinical protocol," suggesting it was likely conducted in the US or under US regulatory oversight. It is a prospective clinical study.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

This information is not provided in the summary. The clinical study investigated effectiveness in subjects, likely relying on direct observations and patient-reported outcomes rather than expert consensus on diagnostic images.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the summary. For a clinical study involving subject outcomes, adjudication might involve blinded assessment of adverse events or efficacy endpoints by clinicians.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Was it done? No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study, typically seen in imaging for diagnostic accuracy, was not performed. The study was a clinical trial comparing the new solution to predicate devices with human subjects.
• Effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance: Not applicable, as this was not an AI-assisted diagnostic device study.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

• Was it done? Not applicable. This device is a contact lens solution, not an algorithm, so a standalone algorithm performance study was not relevant. The "standalone" performance here refers to the device's inherent efficacy in its intended uses. Non-clinical tests like cleaning effectiveness, microbial testing, and toxicology could be considered "standalone" as they evaluate the solution itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the clinical study: The "ground truth" would be established through clinical assessments, patient complaints/symptoms, and potentially objective measures relevant to soft contact lens wear (e.g., ocular health exams, comfort ratings, adverse event monitoring). The summary states "results indicate that the solution is non-inferior," implying a comparison of these clinical outcomes between the test and predicate solutions.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a contact lens solution, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable. As above, this is a physical product, not an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device