Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

The Murex Rub-ex test is a rapid latex agglutination test for the qualitative and semi-quantitative determination of rubella antibodies in serum.

The Murex Rub-ex test is a rapid latex agglutination test for the qualitative and semi-quantitative determination of rubella antibodies in serum. The rubella virus used to sensitize the Latex Reagent is inactivated and disrupted before use. Sera used in the preparation of controls are tested with FDA approved tests for hepatitis B virus surface antigen (Hosag) and antibodies to HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Only units that are non-reactive for Hbsag and antibodies to HIV and HCV are selected.

This 510(k) summary for the Murex Rub-ex Test provides very limited information regarding detailed performance studies for establishing acceptance criteria. Based on the provided text, it's clear that the device is a rapid latex agglutination test for rubella antibodies, and its safety and effectiveness are primarily supported by comparative studies with other existing, presumably FDA-approved, rubella tests.

Here's an attempt to extract and infer information based on the given text, acknowledging significant limitations due to the brevity of the summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Unfortunately, the summary does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, agreement percentages) or precise quantitative performance metrics for the Murex Rub-ex test itself. Instead, it refers to "equivalent performance" in comparative studies.

Inferred Acceptance Criteria (based on comparison to existing devices):
For the Murex Rub-ex Test to be considered safe and effective, it must demonstrate comparable performance to established, FDA-approved rubella antibody tests (specifically mentioned: Rubascan by Becton Dickinson and Rubalex by Orion Diagnostics). This likely implies that its diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) should be within a pre-defined, clinically acceptable margin of these predicate devices. The summary does not quantify this margin.

Reported Device Performance:
The summary states: "The Murex Rub-ex test showed an equivalent performance in comparative studies with test kits distributed by Becton Dickinson and Orion Diagnostics." It further asserts: "Any differences between the Murex Rub-ex test and either Rubascan or Rubalex do not compromise the safety and efficacy of the product nor do they represent a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury."

Without specific numbers, we cannot populate a detailed table.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: The summary does not specify the sample size used for the comparative studies.
• Data Provenance: The summary does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. It just mentions "comparative studies."

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth and Their Qualifications

The summary describes a laboratory test, not an imaging or interpretive device requiring expert human readers to establish ground truth from patient data. The "ground truth" for evaluating this type of diagnostic test would typically be established by concordance with a reference method or a combination of methods, not by expert interpretation of the test's output. Therefore, information on "number of experts" or their qualifications is not applicable in the traditional sense for this type of device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Since the device performs a biochemical assay resulting in a qualitative or semi-quantitative result, and not an interpretive task requiring human review, an "adjudication method" as typically described for AI/CAD systems (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is not applicable. The results would likely be determined by the assay readout. Discrepancies between the Murex test and predicate devices would be analyzed for agreement and clinical significance, but not "adjudicated" by experts in the same way.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No, a MRMC study was not done. MRMC studies are typically performed for interpretive tasks (like reading medical images) to assess how human performance changes with or without AI assistance. This device is a diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• Yes, in essence, this is a standalone device. The Murex Rub-ex test performs its function (detecting and semi-quantifying rubella antibodies) as an algorithm/assay without human interpretive input in the direct act of determining the result. A technician would perform the test and read the result, but the diagnostic output itself is generated by the chemical reaction and agglutination, not a human interpretation of raw data. The "performance" being evaluated is of the assay itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Given this is a diagnostic assay, the ground truth would most likely be established by:

• Concordance with a "reference standard" method: This could be an independently validated, highly accurate laboratory test for rubella antibodies, potentially a more complex or time-consuming method.
• Agreement with predicate devices: The summary explicitly states comparisons with Rubascan and Rubalex, implying these predicate devices served as a de-facto "ground truth" or at least a benchmark for "equivalent performance."
• Clinical serology panels: Use of well-characterized serum samples from individuals with known rubella infection status (e.g., confirmed recent infection, past infection, unvaccinated, immune) would be a more robust form of ground truth, though not explicitly mentioned.

The summary points primarily to comparison with other existing diagnostic tests as the basis for establishing "equivalent performance," which implies those tests served as the practical ground truth for the comparison.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable / Information not provided. This device is a latex agglutination assay, not a machine learning or AI-driven algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The "training" of such a device is in its chemical formulation and manufacturing process.

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

• Not applicable / Information not provided. As this is not an AI/ML device, the concept of a "training set" and establishing ground truth for it is irrelevant. The "performance" of the assay is inherent in its design and validated through testing.

Ask a specific question about this device