Search Results

MUSCLE STIMULATION THERAPY DELIVERED BY THE BIO SPA INTELLIGENT DEVICE IS INDICATED FOR THE FOLLOWING USES :

• 1- Relaxation of Muscle Spasm
• 2- Prevention or retardation of disuse atrophy
• 3- Increasing local blood circulation
• 4- Muscle re-education
• 5- Immediate postsurgical stimulation of calf muscles to prevent venous thrombosis, and
• 6- Maintaining or increasing range of motion

Not Found

The provided text is related to an FDA 510(k) clearance for a device called "Bio Spa Intelligent." It does not contain information about acceptance criteria, study design, or performance metrics. The document is a clearance letter and an "Indications For Use" statement.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, as this information is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SW Ultrasound Line is intended for use in applying therapeutic deep heat for selected medical conditions.

Ultrasound therapy is intended to generate deep heat within body tissues for the treatment of selected medical conditions such as relief of pain, muscle spasms, and joint contractures, but not for the treatment of malignancies (21 CFR 890.5300)

IS A THERAPEUTICAL ULTRASONIC DIATHERMY DEVICE FOR ION THEFULL LONSE TO APPLY THERAPEUTIC DEEP HEAT FOR SELECTED MEDICAL CONDITIONS.

The SW Ultrasound Line is a device that applies to specific areas of the body ultrasonic energy at a frequency beyond 20 kilohertz and that is intended to generate deep heat within body tissues for the treatment of selected medical conditions such as relief of pain, muscle spasms, and joint contractures, but not for the treatment of malignancies.

The provided document outlines the 510(k) premarket notification for the "SW ULTRASOUND" device. This is a notification for substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than a de novo approval requiring extensive clinical efficacy studies against specific performance criteria.

Therefore, the information you've requested regarding acceptance criteria and performance studies, particularly in the context of diagnostic accuracy, human reader effectiveness with AI, and standalone algorithm performance, is not present in these documents. The focus here is on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as an existing device, primarily through technological comparison and basic safety testing.

Here's an breakdown based on the information available:

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

The document does not specify quantitative "acceptance criteria" for diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) because it is for an ultrasonic diathermy device (therapeutic, not diagnostic). The substantial equivalence is based on:

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of this 510(k). The "testing" referred to are physical and electrical performance tests on the device itself, not a clinical test set of patient data.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. The testing was conducted by Starbene on its own device and 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" in the sense of expert adjudicated patient data is not relevant for this type of device submission. The "ground truth" for the engineering tests would be the established scientific principles and regulatory standards for electrical safety, EMC, and thermal effects.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "test set" of patient data requiring 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 therapeutic ultrasound, not an AI-driven diagnostic imaging system. There are no "human readers" or "AI assistance" involved in its stated function.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-only device.

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

The "ground truth" for the tests performed (electrical safety, EMC, temperature rise, 21 CFR 1050.1 compliance) is based on established engineering standards and regulatory requirements, not clinical outcomes or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no mention of a training set as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device