Search Results

Not Found

Carrasyn™ wound dressings are either smooth, nonoily clear hydrogels or freeze-dried preparations of the same. They are supplied in either a liquid or dry state and are designed to be used in conjunction with an appropriate cover dressing

The provided text does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or a formal study designed to "prove" the device meets such criteria in terms of quantitative measures like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy.

The text describes:

• Device: Carrasyn™ Hydrogel Wound Dressings.
• Purpose of filing: Standardization and clarification of previously cleared indications for labeling.
• Safety assessment: Biocompatibility tests (Primary Dermal Irritation, Primary Eye Irritation) in animal models, conducted under GLP regulations. These tests demonstrated the dressings are not primary dermal or eye irritants.
• Clinical Experience: Two observational studies (not formal clinical trials with specific endpoints or acceptance criteria to evaluate device performance) involving:
  • Four patients with radiation dermatitis.
  • 30 patients with diabetic ulcers (Grades III or IV, treated for 10 weeks).
• Outcomes of clinical experience: These studies "evaluated the acceptability of Carrasyn™ Hydrogel Wound Dressing to both the patients and clinicians, to wound and skin appearance, and to the wound healing environment." They "concluded that Carrasyn™ wound dressings are safe and effective for their intended use."

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or answer most of the questions as the information is not present in the provided document sections. The document focuses on safety testing (biocompatibility) and reporting on limited clinical experience for labeling purposes, rather than a study designed to establish quantitative performance metrics against acceptance criteria.

Here's how I would attempt to answer based only on the provided text, while acknowledging the severe limitations:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation: The "acceptance criteria" above are inferred from the types of evaluations mentioned ("evaluated the acceptability," "concluded that Carrasyn™ wound dressings are safe and effective"). No specific quantitative thresholds or predefined success criteria are provided in the text.

Summary of Study Information (Based on provided text):

• No formal study with defined quantitative acceptance criteria to prove device performance was described in the provided text. The clinical "studies" mentioned were observational and focused on acceptability and qualitative outcomes.

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • For biocompatibility tests: "standard animal models" (specific number not given).
  • For clinical experience: 4 patients with radiation dermatitis, 30 patients with diabetic ulcers (total 34 patients).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical experience likely from the US where the sponsor is located. Type: Retrospective or prospective is not specified for the clinical experience, but it seems to describe observed outcomes. Biocompatibility tests were prospective animal studies.

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

• Biocompatibility: Likely conducted by laboratory technicians and assessed by toxicologists/pathologists as per GLP, but specific numbers and qualifications are not mentioned.
• Clinical Experience: "clinicians" (plural) are mentioned as evaluators, but the specific number or their qualifications (e.g., dermatologists, wound care specialists) are not provided. The term "experts" is not explicitly used.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not specified for either the biocompatibility tests or the clinical experience.

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:

• No. This type of study (MRMC with AI assistance) is not mentioned in the provided text. The device is a wound dressing, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• No. Not applicable as this is a physical wound dressing, not a software algorithm.

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

• Biocompatibility: Scientific standards for primary dermal and eye irritation (observed biological reactions in animal models).
• Clinical Experience: Clinician and patient observations/feedback on acceptability, wound and skin appearance, and wound healing environment. This could be considered a form of "outcomes data" or expert observation, but not formal "ground truth" for a performance metric.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not provided. There is no mention of machine learning or an AI algorithm that would require a dedicated training set.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided (see point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device