Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K980580
    Date Cleared
    1998-06-25

    (128 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    880.5860
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The general use syringes are intended for the aspiration and injection of fluids. Insulin syringes are intended for the injection of insulin.

    Device Description

    This change in syringe plunger tip formulation is for the Becton Dickinson syringe. Products include: General purpose and insulin syringes. Sterile and non-sterile syringes. Syringes with and without needles attached. No design changes are being made.

    AI/ML Overview

    The Becton Dickinson Single Use Hypodermic and Insulin Syringes, with an alternate latex-free rubber formulation for the plunger tip, were assessed for functional equivalence to the predicate device.

    1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Acceptance Criteria (Test)Reported Device Performance (Alternate Plunger Tip)
    Leak Test (ISO 7886 and ISO 8537)Passed; demonstrated equivalence to current plunger tip formulation.
    AutoclavibilitySatisfactorily passed (autoclaved at 270°F, 15 minutes, then passed ISO leak testing).
    Syringe Infusion Pump PerformanceDemonstrated equivalent performance to natural rubber plunger tip samples.
    Chemical TestingAcceptable per ISO and USP requirements.
    BiocompatibilitySatisfactorily completed.
    Plunger Actuation ForcesEquivalent or superior to the current plunger tip.

    2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

    The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes used for each test. However, it indicates these were conducted for the alternate plunger tip formulation to demonstrate equivalence to the current plunger tip formulation (predicate device).
    The data provenance is not specified in terms of country of origin, but it is a retrospective evaluation aiming to demonstrate equivalence to an existing product.

    3. Number of Experts and Qualifications

    This information is not provided. The study involves laboratory and performance testing of a medical device, not a diagnostic assessment typically requiring expert interpretation of clinical images or data.

    4. Adjudication Method

    Not applicable. This was a technical performance study on a physical device, not an assessment requiring adjudication of diagnostic interpretations.

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

    Not applicable. This submission concerns a material change in a syringe plunger tip and its functional equivalence, not a comparative effectiveness study involving human readers or AI.

    6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

    Not applicable. This submission is for a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI system.

    7. Type of Ground Truth Used

    The ground truth for the equivalence study was established by comparing the performance indicators of the alternate plunger tip formulation against the established functional performance and specifications of the predicate device's (current plunger tip formulation) performance and relevant international standards (ISO, USP). Essentially, the predicate device's measured performance served as the "ground truth" for comparison for each test.

    8. Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no training set.

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

    Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1