Search Results

SLE Electrodes and Accessories are intended to be used applied directly to a patient's skin to record physiological signals including applications in EEG, EMG, nerve conduction velocity, evoked potential, and electronystagmography.

The SLE Electrodes and Accessories device is a cutaneous electrode.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for SLE Electrodes and Accessories, which is a cutaneous electrode. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance testing, or studies proving the device meets specific criteria.

The document is a typical 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA, confirming substantial equivalence to predicate devices, and outlining regulatory requirements. It focuses on the classification, intended use, and general controls applicable to the device, rather than detailed performance study results.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them because this information is not present in the provided input.

Ask a specific question about this device

SLE EMG Electrodes and Accessories are intended for use in recording muscle activity for electromyography applications.

The SLE EMG Electrodes and Accessories device consists of a variety of needle electrodes and accessories to be used in eletromyographic applications.

This FDA 510(k) K981004 for "SLE EMG Electrodes and Accessories" indicates that the device was cleared based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not on a new study demonstrating its performance against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, and MRMC studies is not available in this document. The FDA's 510(k) clearance process for this type of device at the time focused on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring extensive new performance studies.

Here's a breakdown of why this information is missing based on the provided text:

• No new clinical or performance study was conducted or reported. The document repeatedly emphasizes substantial equivalence to existing devices.
• The "Technological Characteristics" section specifically states: "The design, materials, H. composition, packaging, and other chemical technological characteristics of the subject device are considered to be the same as the technological characteristics of the predicate devices." This means the manufacturer didn't claim novel technology requiring new performance metrics.
• The FDA clearance letter confirms: "We have determined the device is substantially equivalent...".

However, if we were to hypothesize what would be required for such a device if a performance study were conducted, and how the information would be presented in a typical regulatory submission (though not present here), it might look like this (purely illustrative, based on common neurophysiology electrode testing):

(Hypothetical, as this information is NOT in the provided document)

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

Ask a specific question about this device