Search Results

The Accu-Chek Softclix Blood Lancing System is intended for the hygienic collection of capillary blood for testing purposes from the side of a fingertip and from alternative sites, such as the palm, the upper arm, and the forearm.

The sterile, single-use lancets are to be used with the reusable lancing device that is to be cleaned and disinfected between each use, and then the lancets are to be disposed of.

This system is for use only on a single patient in a home setting.

This system is not suitable for use by healthcare professionals with multiple patients in a healthcare setting.

The Accu-Chek Softclix Lancing Device uses compatible Accu-Chek Softclix Lancets to obtain a drop of blood from a fingertip or alternative sites. The Accu-Chek Softclix Blood Lancing System consists of three components:

1. Accu-Chek Softclix Lancing Device
2. Accu-Chek Softclix Lancets
3. Accu-Chek Softclix Alternative Site Testing (AST) Cap

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance of a blood lancing system and focuses on the substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than detailed acceptance criteria and a study proving those criteria.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for a study proving acceptance criteria cannot be extracted as they are not present in this regulatory document. This document emphasizes non-clinical (bench) testing to ensure functional equivalence and risk mitigation for a medical device.

However, based on the information provided, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results. It states that "Nonclinical bench testing was performed per the applicable FDA Guidance documents (Sharps Injury Prevention Features) and special controls (878.4850). This includes (mechanical) design verification testing in order to ensure the risks were appropriately managed, in addition to verifying that the device's mechanical functions are suitable for use over the lifetime of the device." This implies that the device met certain mechanical and safety standards but doesn't list specific quantitative criteria or their outcomes.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The text only mentions "nonclinical bench testing" and "design verification testing" without specifying sample sizes for these tests or the origin of the data.

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)

This information is not applicable and not provided. As this is a mechanical blood lancing device, "ground truth" in the context of expert review for diagnostic accuracy is not relevant. The testing focuses on mechanical function, safety, and performance as a lancing device.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods are typically associated with qualitative or diagnostic assessments, which are not the focus of this device's testing described.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. An MRMC study is relevant for diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted diagnostic devices. This device is a blood lancing system, which does not involve human readers interpreting AI results.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. The device described, a blood lancing system, does not involve an algorithm for standalone performance assessment in the way AI systems do. Its performance is mechanical and safety-related.

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

The document explicitly states: "Clinical Testing is not applicable: risk analysis confirmed that all identified risks were addressed and mitigated appropriately." Therefore, ground truth, as often defined for diagnostic accuracy, was not established through clinical data, pathology, or expert consensus on patient outcomes. Instead, the "ground truth" for this device's performance would be adherence to engineering specifications, safety standards (e.g., sharps injury prevention), and mechanical functionality confirmed through bench testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable and not provided. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device that requires training data.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided, as there is no training set mentioned for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device