Search Results

The Diabetic Needle Syringe Disposal (D.N.D.) is to be used by the diabetic patient at home for the collection of contaminated disposable sharps at the point of use.

Diabetic Needle Syringe Disposal (D.N.D)

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the information required to answer your request about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a "Diabetic Needle Syringe Disposal (D.N.D.)" device, stating that it is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.

It details:

• The device name and model number (PMSM - 950)
• Regulatory class (II) and product code (FMI)
• Indications for Use: "to be used by the diabetic patient at home for the collection of contaminated disposable sharps at the point of use."
• The date of clearance (April 21, 1999)

However, it does not include:

1. A table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance.
2. Details about sample sizes, data provenance, or study types (retrospective/prospective).
3. Information on experts, ground truth establishment, or adjudication methods.
4. Any mention of a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or standalone algorithm performance.
5. Sample sizes for training sets or how ground truth for training sets was established.

This document is a regulatory approval notice, not a detailed study report.

Ask a specific question about this device

For the disposal of medical sharps in health care facilities and home use.

Not Found

This looks like a 510k clearance letter for a medical device (Syringe Needle Remover (S.N.R.)) from 1997. The document primarily focuses on the regulatory approval and does not contain details about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance in the way modern AI/ML device submissions do. Such detailed performance studies were not typically required or documented in this format for 510(k) submissions in 1997 for this type of device.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be found in the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted and a clear indication of what's missing:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

   • Acceptance Criteria: Not specified in this document. For a Syringe Needle Remover, acceptance criteria would typically relate to its effectiveness in removing needles, preventing accidental sticks, and safe containment.
   • Reported Device Performance: Not reported in this document.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

   • Not applicable/Not provided. This document is a regulatory clearance letter, not a study report.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience):

   • Not applicable/Not provided. This document does not describe a study involving expert-established ground truth.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

   • Not applicable/Not provided.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

   • Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

   • Not applicable/Not provided.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML model that undergoes training.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable.

Summary based on the provided document:

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a non-AI/ML medical device, the "Syringe Needle Remover (S.N.R.)". The letter confirms that the device is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices already on the market. It does not contain information about specific performance acceptance criteria or detailed study results that would typically be associated with modern AI/ML device submissions. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" is not described in this regulatory clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device