Search Results

Extra Strength lubricated rubber male condom for use as a contraceptive and prophylactic. Additional Statement: "Laboratory tests of physical properties show the ExtraWear condom is stronger than the InnerWear condom. However, the breakage rate during sex has not been tested."

Not Found

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the ExtraWear™, Gentlemen's Choice™, Extra Strength… Lubricated Latex Condom:

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA, not a detailed study report. As such, it does not contain the specific acceptance criteria or the study data that proves the device meets those criteria in the format requested.

The letter confirms that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, meaning it has similar indications for use, technological characteristics, and performs as safely and effectively. The letter also mentions general controls and relevant regulations for medical devices.

However, based on the limited information, we can extract some points about the indications for use and a very high-level statement about testing:

Indications for Use:
"Extra Strength lubricated rubber male condom for use as a contraceptive and prophylactic."

Statement about testing (from the "Indications for Use" section):
"Laboratory tests of physical properties show the ExtraWear condom is stronger than the InnerWear condom. However, the breakage rate during sex has not been tested."

Addressing your specific questions based on the available text (and noting where information is absent):

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

   This information is not present in the provided document. The document is an FDA clearance letter, not a detailed technical report of the device's performance against specific criteria. It only states that laboratory tests show the ExtraWear condom is "stronger than the InnerWear condom." No numerical values for strength or specific acceptance criteria are given.

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

   This information is not present in the provided document. The document refers generally to "Laboratory tests of physical properties" but provides no details on sample size, data provenance, or study design (retrospective/prospective).

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 present in the provided document. The concept of "ground truth" established by experts, as typically applied in AI/diagnostic device studies, is not applicable or discussed in this 510(k) clearance letter for a condom. The testing mentioned appears to be physical property tests, which would be measured objectively rather than through expert consensus.

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

   This information is not present in the provided document. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for subjective assessments or when discrepancies arise in expert reviews, which is not indicated for the type of testing broadly mentioned here.

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 present in the provided document. An MRMC study or AI-assisted improvement for human readers is entirely irrelevant to a physical device like a latex condom.

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

   This information is not present in the provided document. This concept applies to AI algorithms, not a physical device like a condom.

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

   Based on the statement "Laboratory tests of physical properties," the "ground truth" would likely be objective physical measurements rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data. However, the exact methods are not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

   This information is not present in the provided document. The concept of a "training set" applies to machine learning models, which is not applicable to this device.

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

   This information is not present in the provided document. As above, "training set" and its "ground truth" establishment are not relevant to this device.

Summary of what can be gleaned about the study:

The only study mentioned is "Laboratory tests of physical properties" which determined "the ExtraWear condom is stronger than the InnerWear condom." No further details on the methodology, sample sizes, or specific results are provided in this regulatory letter. A critical limitation is explicitly stated: "However, the breakage rate during sex has not been tested." This implies that while laboratory strength tests were conducted, real-world performance data regarding breakage was not part of this submission for substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device