Search Results

E-Z Chek® Residual Chlorine Test Strips (K100-0101B) provide accurate and convenient means of measuring the concentration of free chlorine remaining in water when rinsing out equipment following disinfection. A rapid screening qualitative method will detect levels above 0.5ppm (mg/L) while the 30 second semi-quantitative method allows interpolation of concentration between 0ppm and 5ppm. The qualitative method can be used to determine that chlorine has been adequately rinsed from the equipment. The semi-quantitative method may be useful when corrective measures are undertaken on equipment retaining higher levels of chlorine for extended periods and for testing any containers disinfected with free chlorine (bleach).

Reprocessing Products Corporation (RPC) E-Z Chek® Residual Chlorine Test Strips (K100-0101B) is semi-quantitative or qualitative, reagent test strip comprised of a pad impregnated with chemicals, which change color upon contact with free chlorine and combined chlorine (monochloramines). The pad is attached to a plastic strip for handling.

The Reprocessing Products Corporation (RPC) E-Z Chek® Residual Chlorine Test Strips (K100-0101B) are designed to provide an accurate and convenient method for measuring the concentration of free chlorine remaining in water after rinsing equipment following disinfection.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study conducted for the device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria for device performance. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that the subject device consistently generates color change that meets the color blocks for reference solution concentrations, similar to the predicate device. The performance is assessed qualitatively (for detecting levels above 0.5 ppm) and semi-quantitatively (for interpolating concentrations between 0 ppm and 5 ppm).

From the "Non-clinical Performance Data" section:
"The test data confirms the subject device and the predicate device consistently generates color change which meets the color block(s) for the reference solution concentrations tested. This data demonstrates appropriate performance for the detection of residual free chlorine in rinse water that was used in disinfection of hemodialysis equipment fluid pathways."

Given this, the table would look like this:

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the test set. It mentions "reference solution concentrations tested" implicitly indicating multiple concentrations were used. The data provenance is not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective), but it is a non-clinical performance study.

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

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for the test set. The ground truth appears to be established by using "reference solution concentrations," which implies a controlled laboratory setting where the actual chlorine concentrations are known.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

No adjudication method is described. The comparison is against "color block(s) for the reference solution concentrations tested," suggesting a direct visual comparison by the test personnel.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study is a non-clinical performance evaluation comparing the subject device's color change against known reference solutions and its predicate device. This device is a test strip, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, so such a study would not be applicable.

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

No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. This device is a manual test strip that requires human observation and interpretation of color change to determine chlorine levels. It does not involve an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth used is based on known, controlled reference solution concentrations of free chlorine in water. These are prepared solutions with precisely measured amounts of chlorine.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

This device is a chemical test strip, not a machine learning or AI-driven product. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of algorithm development. The performance data is generated through testing the strips against various known concentrations.

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

As there is no training set for this chemical test strip, this question is not applicable. The device's performance is inherently based on its chemical reactivity and the visual interpretation of the resulting color change against a predefined color chart.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Reprocessing Products Corporation (RPC) E-Z Chek® Ozone Test Strips (K100-0111) are designed to indicate the presence of ozone in water used in hemodialysis. The test strips will measure equal to 0.0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and >0.5 mg/L.

Device is semi-quantitative, reagent test strip comprised of a pad impregnated with chemicals, which change color upon contact with Ozone. The pad is attached to a plastic strip for handling.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the E-Z Chek® Ozone Test Strips, focusing on acceptance criteria and the study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Based on the provided text, the acceptance criteria are implicitly performance-driven, relating to the ability of the test strips to accurately detect and differentiate ozone concentrations.

Study Information:

The provided document offers a high-level summary of the device's performance but lacks detailed information about the specific study design and methodology. Due to this limitation, many of the requested points cannot be fully addressed.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the provided text. The document states "The data confirms the product consistently generates color change...", but does not provide numbers of tests, samples, or replicates.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It's highly probable the testing was conducted internally by Reprocessing Products Corporation, but the location and whether it was retrospective or prospective is not mentioned.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable/not specified. This device is a chemical test strip with a visual color change. The ground truth would be established by preparing water samples with known, precise concentrations of ozone (reference solutions), not by expert interpretation of the test strip results in a clinical setting.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. As noted above, the assessment likely involves comparing the color change on the strip to a pre-defined color chart, with the "ground truth" being the known ozone concentration of the reference solution. This is a direct chemical measurement, not a subjective interpretation requiring adjudication.

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

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC study was not done. These studies are typically for imaging or diagnostic devices where human readers interpret results, often with and without AI assistance to measure reader improvement. The E-Z Chek® Ozone Test Strips are a direct chemical test.
• Effect Size of Human Reader Improvement: Not applicable.

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

• Standalone Performance: While the principle of comparing the strip's color to a color chart is "standalone" in that a human is reading the result from the strip itself, there isn't an "algorithm" in the typical sense of AI/machine learning. The device is the algorithm (chemical reaction + color change). The performance data is the standalone performance of the physical test strip.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth used would be reference solutions with known, precisely measured concentrations of ozone. The test strips' color changes are then compared against these known concentrations. This is implied by the statement "The data confirms the product consistently generates color change which meets the color block for the reference solution concentration."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable/not specified. Chemical test strips are developed through chemical formulation and calibration, not typically by training a machine learning model on a "training set" of data in the way an AI-powered diagnostic device would be. The development likely involved numerous trials to achieve the desired chemical reaction and color scale, but this isn't a "training set" in the AI sense.

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

• How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established: Not applicable in the context of an AI training set. For chemical test strip development, the "ground truth" in development would be the precisely prepared and verified ozone concentrations of water samples used to calibrate the color scale and ensure the chemical reagents react appropriately. This typically involves analytical chemistry techniques to confirm the actual ozone levels in control solutions.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Reprocessing Products Corporation (RPC) E-Z Chek® Blood Leak Test Strips are designed to indicate the presence or absence of blood in dialysate during the hemodialysis procedure. The test strips will measure equal to 0 mg HGB/dL and 0.25 mg HGB/dL in dialysate.

The Reprocessing Product Corporation (RPC) E-Z Chek® Blood Leak Test Strips are indicated for detecting the presence or absence of blood in dialysate during hemodialysis treatments.

Device is semi-quantitative, reagent test strip comprised of a pad impregnated with chemicals which change color upon contact with blood in dialysate. The pad is attached to a plastic strip for handling.

The provided document describes the Reprocessing Products Corporation (RPC) E-Z Chek® Blood Leak Test Strips. Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study outlined:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative pass/fail format typical for medical device verification. Instead, it describes the intended performance and the study's findings regarding that performance.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "Reference solutions" were used, and "data confirm the product consistently generates color change," but it doesn't quantify the number of tests performed or the sample size of distinct reference solutions/concentrations tested.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The study appears to be a laboratory-based performance evaluation using reference solutions, rather than human clinical data from a specific country. It is almost certainly retrospective in the sense that the test strips were manufactured and then tested.

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

Not applicable. The ground truth for this device is established by the known concentrations of hemoglobin (HGB) in the prepared reference solutions, not by expert human interpretation. The "color block" comparison itself would be a visual assessment, but the ground truth is the chemical concentration.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The performance is evaluated by observing a color change and comparing it to a visual "color block" corresponding to known HGB concentrations. There is no mention of human adjudication for the results beyond this direct comparison.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a diagnostic test strip where performance is assessed by comparison to reference color blocks, not by interpretation by multiple human readers. Therefore, an effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance is not applicable.

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

Yes, this appears to be a standalone performance evaluation. The device's performance is determined by its inherent color-changing reaction to blood in dialysate, and its comparison to established color blocks. There is no "human-in-the-loop" aspect to its fundamental operation or the evaluation method described beyond visually comparing the strip's color to a reference.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is known concentrations of hemoglobin (HGB) in prepared reference solutions. These solutions serve as the objective standard against which the test strip's color-changing reaction is evaluated.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a chemical reagent test strip, not an AI or machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set." Its chemical formulation dictates its performance, which is then verified.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Reprocessing Products Corporation Test Strips are intended for use in the monitoring of pH in Dialysate and Water.
The Reprocessing Product Corporation (RPC) pH Test Strips are indicated for determining the pH of acid dialysates, bicarbonate dialysates, or water. These Test Strips are indicated for testing acid/bicarbonate dialysates and water.
pH Test Strips are comprised of two different pH ranges:
pH = 6.8-8.5 (K100-0117) is for acid/bicarbonate dialysate, bicarbonate concentrate and water
pH = 0-14 (K100-0104) is for water used to make up dialysate.

Device is semi-quantitative, reagent test strip comprised of a pad impregnated with chemicals which change color upon contact with Dialysate or Water respectively. The pad is attached to a plastic strip for handling.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Reprocessing Products Corporation pH Test Strips, based on the provided text:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of specific quantitative metrics like sensitivity or accuracy percentages. Instead, the performance is described qualitatively.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify a numerical sample size for the test set. It mentions "Reference solutions were used to evaluate pH performance." This implies a series of solutions at various pH levels within the specified ranges, but the exact number is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It can be inferred that the testing was conducted by the manufacturer, Reprocessing Products Corporation, based in Tucson, AZ, USA. The data appears to be prospective, as it describes the evaluation of the product's performance against reference solutions.

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

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for the test set. The ground truth appears to be established by the reference solutions themselves, whose pH values are presumably known through independent, calibrated means (e.g., pH meters).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No adjudication method is described or implied, as the ground truth is established by reference solutions and the device's color changes are matched against these.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. This device is a test strip with a visual color change, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would typically involve human readers interpreting images.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The "Performance" section explicitly states: "The data confirm that the product consistently generates color changes which match the color blocks for the Reference solution pH." This refers to the device's inherent ability to produce accurate results independent of human interpretation or assistance, by visually matching the color to a provided chart.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was reference solutions with known pH values. The device's color changes were compared to the color blocks corresponding to these reference pH values.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The concept of a "training set" is not applicable here in the context of machine learning. This device is a chemical reagent test strip, not a machine learning algorithm. Its performance is based on chemical reactions, not trained data.

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

As explained above, there is no "training set" in the machine learning sense for this type of device. The chemical formulation of the test strip is designed to react in a specific way to different pH levels, and its performance is evaluated against chemically prepared reference solutions.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Reprocessing Product Corporation (RPC) Total Chlorine Test Strips are indicated for detection of Free Chlorine and Total Chlorine in water. These Test Strips are indicated for testing water used to prepare dialysate (Free Chlorine and Chloramines) and for testing rinse water following dialysis equipment disinfection (Free Chlorine).

Device is semi-quantitative, reagent test strip comprised of a pad impregnated with chemicals which change color upon contact with Free Chlorine or Chloramines. The pad is attached to a plastic strip for handling. The color change is interpreted by the use of color blocks on two separate (ranges) color charts. Gradations for the Ultra-Low Total Chlorine (K100-0118) color chart include 0 ppm, 0.01 ppm, 0.02 ppm, 0.05ppm, 0.1ppm, 0.15ppm, 0.2 ppm. Gradations for the E-Z Chek® Sensitive Total Chlorine (K100-0106) color chart include 0 ppm, 0.1 ppm, 0.5 ppm and 3.0 ppm.

The provided document describes the Reprocessing Products Corporation (RPC) Total Chlorine Test Strips. Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative pass/fail format with specific thresholds. Instead, it describes the intended performance and then presents data confirming that performance.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document states that "Reference solutions were used to evaluate performance between 0 and 10 ppm Chlorine." However, it does not specify the number of individual tests or measurements performed with these reference solutions. It does list the specific gradations for each test strip range (e.g., 0 ppm, 0.01 ppm, 0.02 ppm for Ultra-Low Total Chlorine).
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. It also does not explicitly state if the study was retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of a 510(k) submission for a test strip, it's highly likely that the performance evaluation was conducted prospectively in a laboratory setting using prepared reference solutions.

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

This type of testing for chemical reagent strips does not typically involve human experts establishing "ground truth" in the same way as medical imaging or clinical diagnoses. The "ground truth" is established by the known concentrations of the reference solutions themselves. Therefore, information on the number and qualifications of experts for ground truth is not applicable in this context.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are typically used when there's subjective interpretation or disagreement among human readers/experts. For these test strips, "ground truth" is determined by the precisely known concentrations of the reference solutions. The interpretation of the color change on the strip is then compared against a pre-defined color chart.

The document indicates: "The color change is interpreted by the use of color blocks on two separate (ranges) color charts." This suggests a direct comparison method rather than an adjudication process. Any discrepancies would likely point to a failure of the strip or the reading process, not an issue with establishing ground truth.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed, nor is it applicable for this type of device. MRMC studies are used to evaluate the impact of a device (often AI) on human reader performance in interpreting medical images or clinical data. This device is a semi-quantitative chemical test strip; its performance is assessed against known chemical concentrations, not through human diagnostic accuracy with and without AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was performed. The entire performance section "The data confirm the product consistently generates color change which correlates with the color block for the Reference solution concentration. Reference solutions were used to evaluate performance between 0 and 10 ppm Chlorine..." describes the device's performance in isolation using reference solutions. It does not involve human readers interpreting results in a variable "human-in-the-loop" setting.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used is known chemical concentrations (reference solutions). The performance of the test strips is validated by comparing the color change produced by the strip when exposed to these reference solutions against the expected color block for that known concentration.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The concept of a "training set" is primarily relevant for machine learning algorithms. Since this device is a chemical reagent test strip, it does not involve a machine learning algorithm and therefore does not have a "training set" in the conventional sense. The development of the chemical formulation and color chart would involve R&D and calibration, but not a dataset for algorithm training.

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

As there is no "training set" for a machine learning algorithm, this question is not applicable. The ground truth for the performance evaluation (test set) was established by using precisely prepared reference solutions with known concentrations of chlorine.

Ask a specific question about this device

Micro-X Potency Test Strips are intended for use as a semi-quantitative test of the presence of peracetic acid in dialyzers after reprocessing. This device may be used with all peroxyacetic/peracetic acid germicides used in the reprocessing of dialyzers as part of an established quality assurance program.

Micro X Potency Test Strips are approximately 0.25" x 2.0" packaged 100strips /container. The strips are labeled for use in Reprocessing Hemodialyzers. Micro Xen Potency Test Strips are impregnated with an indicator solution which is activated by the presence of peracetic acid. The reaction results in a color change of the indicator which provides visual confirmation of the presence of peracetic acid.

The provided text describes a medical device called "Micro X Potency Test Strips" and its 510(k) submission. However, the document does not contain explicit "acceptance criteria" in a tabulated format or a detailed description of a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the way one would expect for a quantitative performance study involving AI or complex diagnostics.

The core of the submission is a demonstration of substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily a demonstration of meeting predefined numerical performance targets in a standalone study.

Here's an attempt to extract and infer the requested information based on the provided text, while acknowledging the limitations of what's available:

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

Based on the document, the primary "acceptance criterion" is the demonstration of "identical performance" to the predicate device. The device's fundamental characteristic is a binary output (YES/NO) for the presence of peracetic acid above a minimum level.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The document states: "Comparative testing between Micro X Potency Strips, Renalin Indicator Test Strips indicate identical performance among the test strips."

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The phrase "among the test strips" suggests multiple strips were tested, but no specific number is provided.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It appears to be a laboratory comparison performed by the manufacturer.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

This information is not provided. The "ground truth" for this type of chemical indicator would typically be established by known concentrations of peracetic acid solutions, rather than expert interpretation of a complex image or signal.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable/Not specified. Given the nature of a chemical indicator changing color, visual observation is the method. There's no indication of multiple readers adjudicating results or complex decision-making.

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

• MRMC Study: No.
• Effect Size: Not applicable. This device is a simple chemical indicator, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

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

No. This is a manual chemical indicator, requiring human visual interpretation of a color change. It is not an algorithm or an AI device.

7. The type of ground truth used

The implicit ground truth is the known presence/absence and concentration of peracetic acid solutions. The device is activated by the presence of a minimum level of peracetic acid.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not use machine learning or AI, so there is no concept of a "training set."

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

Not applicable. There is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Micro-X Residual Test Strips are intended for use as a semi-quantitative test of the residual presence of peracetic acid in dialyzers after reprocessing. This device may be used with all peroxyacetic/peracetic acid germicides used in the reprocessing of dialyzers, sanitation of water treatment systems and dialysis machine disinfection as part of an established quality assurance program.

Micro Xtm Residual Test Strips are approximately 0.25" x 4.75" packaged 100strips /container. The strips are labeled for use in Reprocessing Hemodialyzers. Micro X " Test Strips have a test pad, which is impregnated with peroxidase, which liberates oxygen from peracetic acid upon contact with the solution. The oxygen reacts with the chromophore, color indicator, which is also present on the test pad, resulting in a color change. The color change is compared to the color scale on the container and the result is read directly in mg/L.

The provided text focuses on the 510(k) summary for Micro X™ Residual Test Strips and the FDA's clearance letter. It describes the device, its intended use, and states that comparative testing was done. However, it does not contain enough information to fully describe the acceptance criteria and the study in the detail requested.

Here's what can be extracted and what information is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document mentions "Comparative testing between Micro Xtm Residual Strips" and states the device is "Substantially equivalent to Renalin Residual Test Strips." This implies the acceptance criterion was likely meeting or closely approximating the performance of the predicate device (Renalin Residual Test Strips). However, the specific metrics for comparison (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, detection limits, agreement percentage) and the actual numerical results are not provided.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size: The document only states "Comparative testing." It does not specify the number of samples (e.g., how many tests were run, across what range of concentrations, or how many dialyzers/systems were tested).
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It's unclear if the data was retrospective or prospective, or from what country/locations the samples originated.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not mentioned. The testing seems to be a chemical/analytical comparison rather than relying on human interpretation directly for primary ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not mentioned.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size:

• No. This type of study is not applicable as the device is a chemical test strip, not an imaging or diagnostic device requiring human interpretation of complex data.

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

• The device itself is a standalone, non-algorithmic chemical test strip. Its performance is inherent to its chemical reaction and color change. Users read the color change against a scale, but the core "algorithm" is the strip's chemistry. Therefore, its performance is its standalone performance.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Implied Ground Truth: The ground truth for this type of device would typically be:
  • Known concentrations of peracetic acid: prepared standards measured by analytical chemistry methods (e.g., titration, spectrophotometry) as the gold standard.
  • Comparison to a predicate device: The performance of the Renalin Residual Test Strips would serve as a reference in this comparative study.
• The document doesn't explicitly state how the ground truth was established, but it would logically involve creating solutions with known peracetic acid concentrations.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not mentioned. Chemical test strips typically do not have "training sets" in the same way machine learning algorithms do. Their performance is based on their chemical composition, which is developed and optimized, but not "trained" with data.

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

• Not applicable/Not mentioned for the reasons above.

In summary: The provided text is a high-level 510(k) summary and FDA clearance letter. It confirms that comparative testing was done to establish substantial equivalence with a predicate device for Residual Test Strips, but it lacks the detailed technical specifications and study results that would describe specific acceptance criteria and performance data.

Ask a specific question about this device