Search Results

The SHIAN JIA MEEI TWO Channel Digital T.E.N.S. is intended for symptomatic relief and management of chronic intractable pain.

SHIAN JIA MEEI TWO Channel Digital T.E.N.S.( Transcuntaneus Electrical Nerve Stimulator), is of independent two channels output , designed for symptomatic relief and management of chronic intractable pain. It provides a combination of adjustable frequency , adjustable Pulse Width and adjustable output current intensity. With large LCD panel. It is powered by 9V Battery. SHIAN JIA MEEI TWO Channel Digital T.E.N.S. requires the use of two (2) set of lead-wire and two (2) pairs of cutaneous stimulation electrodes. Model No. description TKL-008/ TKL-168/ TKL-268 is all the same except the Housing printing artwork , model no. & destination.

The provided 510(k) summary (K052182) describes a Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator (TENS) device. This type of regulatory submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than conducting extensive clinical efficacy studies with specific acceptance criteria in the manner of a new drug or novel medical device. Therefore, much of the requested information about device performance, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert consensus, and comparative effectiveness studies is not applicable to this specific submission type and device.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Not Applicable (N/A). The submission is a 510(k) for a TENS unit, which typically relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence through engineering and electrical performance testing against recognized standards and comparison to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than patient-based clinical trials with "test sets" or "data provenance" in the context of diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcomes. The "bench testing" mentioned refers to laboratory tests of the device's electrical output and adherence to safety standards.

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

• N/A. As this is a TENS device seeking 510(k) clearance, there is no mention of "ground truth" established by medical experts for a "test set" in the context of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy. The compliance with electrical and safety standards is verified through engineering testing, not expert medical opinion on a dataset.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• N/A. There is no "test set" in the experimental design sense that would require an adjudication method by experts.

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

• N/A. This device is an electrical nerve stimulator, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. MRMC studies are completely irrelevant to this type of device and submission.

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

• N/A. This device is a TENS unit, which is a physical medical device for therapy, not an algorithm. Therefore, "standalone performance" in the context of an algorithm or AI is not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used

• N/A. The concept of "ground truth" as pathology, outcomes data, or expert consensus is not applicable to an electrical stimulator seeking 510(k) clearance. The "truth" in this context is the device's conformance to established electrical and safety standards and its functional equivalence to a predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

• N/A. This device does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

• N/A. As there is no training set, this question is not applicable.

Summary of the Study that Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study proving the device meets its acceptance criteria is a bench testing program demonstrating:

• Compliance with Recognized Standards: The device conforms to EN 60601-1 (Medical electrical equipment - General requirements for basic safety and essential performance) and EN 60601-1-2 (Medical electrical equipment - Electromagnetic compatibility). It also meets "related FDA Output waveform requirements." These standards establish the acceptance criteria for electrical safety, performance, and electromagnetic compatibility.
• Substantial Equivalence: The device's intended use (symptomatic relief and management of chronic intractable pain) and technological characteristics (adjustable frequency, pulse width, and output current intensity, two independent channels, 9V battery power, lead wires, cutaneous electrodes) are similar to the stated predicate device, the TRIO 300 Multi-mode Electrical Stimulator (K990787).
• No New Questions of Safety or Effectiveness: The bench testing specifically demonstrated that any differences in the technological characteristics between the new device and the predicate device do not raise any new questions of safety or effectiveness.

In essence, the "study" for this 510(k) clearance is a set of engineering tests and a detailed comparison against a known, legally marketed predicate device to confirm safety and fundamental performance characteristics, as opposed to a clinical trial demonstrating efficacy against a specific outcome with human subjects.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SHIAN JIA MEEI DIGITAL PWM TENS is intended for symptomatic relief and management of chronic intractable pain.

The SHIAN JIA MEEI DIGITAL PWM TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation) is designed for symptomatic relief and management of chronic intractable pain. The device has eight stimulating modes providing the different feeling of effects, with mode setting. With large LCD panel. It is powered by three(3) AAA 1.5V Battery. SHIAN JIA MEEI DIGITAL PWM TENS requires the use of a set of lead-wire and one pair of cutaneous stimulation electrodes. Model No. description · YW-6000, UC-332 , UC-330 are identical in circuitry , LCD display , housing -etc. , except they are for different customers(destination). This means the three models ST-331 is identical to model YW-6000/UC-332 /UC-330 except the customers (destination) and the layout shown on the LCD display.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator (TENS) device. However, it does not contain detailed information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance metrics in the way a clinical trial or AI model validation would.

Instead, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on:

• Intended Use: The device shares the same intended use as the predicate (symptomatic relief and management of chronic intractable pain).
• Technological Characteristics: The manufacturer claims similar technological characteristics. Bench testing was conducted to show that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
• Conformance to Standards: The device conforms to applicable safety and EMC requirements (EN 60601-1, EN 60601-1-2) and "related FDA Output waveform requirements."

Therefore, I cannot populate the table and answer the questions as requested, because the necessary information (specific acceptance criteria, detailed study design, sample sizes, expert ground truth, etc.) is not present in the provided document.

Here's what I can extract and explain based on the text:

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

The document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in terms of specific clinical or diagnostic metrics. The "performance summary" states:

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

Not applicable. This was not a data-driven test set for clinical performance. The evaluation was primarily bench testing against engineering standards and comparison to a predicate device.

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

Not applicable. Ground truth as typically understood for medical device performance evaluation (e.g., diagnosis, outcome) was not established by experts for a test set in this context. The "ground truth" here is adherence to engineering standards and an assessment of equivalence by the FDA based on the provided technical documentation.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. There was no test set requiring expert adjudication.

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 device is a TENS unit, not an AI-powered diagnostic or treatment assistance tool that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-based device. Its performance is evaluated based on its physical and electrical characteristics conforming to standards.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" in this context is primarily:

• Engineering Standards Conformance: Verification that the device adheres to recognized international safety and electromagnetic compatibility standards (EN 60601-1, EN 60601-1-2) and "related FDA Output waveform requirements."
• Predicate Device Characteristics: The characteristics and performance of the legally marketed predicate device (TATUNG TMD-26AX Series TENS, K021794) provided the basis for comparison to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not use a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device