Search Results

CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Phencyclidine - Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is a rapid test for the qualitative detection of Phencyclidine and Methylenedioxymethamphetamine in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 25ng/mL and 500ng/mL. respectively.

The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive.

For in vitro diagnostic use only. It is intended for over-the-counter and for prescription use.

The CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Phencyclidine - Methylenedioxymethamphetamine test uses immunochromatographic assays for phencyclidine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine. The test is a lateral flow, one step system for the qualitative detection of phencyclidine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine in human urine.

The provided document describes the performance characteristics of the "CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Phencyclidine - Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" device, a rapid test for the qualitative detection of Phencyclidine (PCP) and Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in human urine.

Here's an analysis based on the given information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of specific percentages for sensitivity, specificity, or overall agreement. However, it presents the results of several performance studies that demonstrate the device's capabilities, particularly around the established cut-off concentrations.

For the purpose of this analysis, we can infer the "acceptance criteria" from the performance reported in the "Precision" and "Lay-user study" sections, generally looking for high agreement around non-cutoff concentrations and a predictable range of positive/negative results at the cutoff.

Implied Acceptance Criteria and Reported Performance:

Summary of Device Performance:
The device demonstrates excellent precision at concentrations significantly above and below the cut-off. At the cut-off, it shows a mix of positive and negative results, which is expected for a qualitative assay designed to discriminate at that concentration. The lay-user study shows strong agreement (100%) at concentrations well outside the cutoff range, with a slight decrease in agreement (85-90%) at concentrations near the +/-25% cut-off, indicating some variability at those boundary concentrations.

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

Precision Study:

• Sample Size: For each drug (PCP and MDMA), 9 concentration levels were tested. For each concentration, tests were performed two runs per day for 25 days, totaling 50 tests per concentration level. Since there were 3 different lots used, this means 150 tests per concentration level (50 tests/level * 3 lots). Overall, 1350 tests per drug (9 conc. levels * 150 tests/level).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implies laboratory-prepared samples. It does not mention country of origin or whether it's retrospective or prospective, but the controlled nature of the study (prepared samples, masked, randomized) suggests a prospective, in-house laboratory setting.

Cut-off Study:

• Sample Size: 125 phencyclidine samples and 125 methylenedioxymethamphetamine samples. These were equally distributed at concentrations of -50%, -25%, at the cut-off, +25%, +50% of their respective cut-offs. This results in 25 samples per concentration level per drug.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implies laboratory-prepared samples. "labeled by a person who prepared them and would not participate in the sample testing." Suggests an in-house laboratory study.

Interference and Specificity Studies:

• Sample Size: Not specified in terms of distinct sample numbers, but interference testing involved adding various substances to 'drug-free urine' and 'urine containing target drugs at 25% below and 25% above the cut-off'. Specificity testing used "drug metabolites and other components that are likely to be present in urine samples". Each condition was tested using three batches of the device by three different operators.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, implied to be laboratory-prepared samples.

Comparison Studies (with GC/MS):

• Sample Size: 80 "unaltered clinical samples" (40 negative and 40 positive) for PCP and separately for MDMA. This means a total of 160 clinical samples were used (80 for PCP + 80 for MDMA).
• Data Provenance: "clinical samples". No country of origin is mentioned. The collection method (e.g., retrospective or prospective) is not stated, but they were "unaltered," "masked and randomized," suggesting a controlled clinical study environment.

Lay-User Study:

• Sample Size: 260 lay persons. Of these, 20 tested drug-free samples, 120 tested phencyclidine samples, and 120 tested methylenedioxymethamphetamine samples. The drug samples were further divided into 6 concentration levels (20 samples per concentration level for each drug).
• Data Provenance: "Urine samples were prepared at the following concentrations; -100%, +/-75%, +/-25% of the cut-off by spiking drug(s) into drug free-pooled urine specimens. The concentrations of the samples were confirmed by GC/MS." These were likely laboratory-prepared "spiked" samples, not entirely real patient samples, although they were processed to simulate varying drug concentrations within urine. Data provenance is not explicitly stated in terms of country or retrospective/prospective outside of this description.

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

• Comparison Studies (with GC/MS): The ground truth was established by GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) results. GC/MS is a highly accurate and widely accepted gold-standard method for drug confirmation testing in urine. Therefore, no human "experts" were used to establish this ground truth; the analytical method itself is the gold standard.
• Precision, Cut-off, Interference, Specificity, Lay-User Studies: The ground truth for these studies was established by preparing samples with known concentrations of the target drugs/substances, often confirmed by an analytical method like GC/MS (as mentioned for the lay-user study). Again, the "ground truth" here is the known chemical composition and concentration, not expert human interpretation.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Comparison Studies (with GC/MS): The device results were directly compared to the GC/MS results, meaning GC/MS served as the definitive ground truth. Discrepancies were noted in discordant tables. There was no mention of human adjudication of discordant results; GC/MS was considered final.
• Precision, Cut-off, Interference, Specificity Studies: The results from the device were assessed against the known concentrations of the prepared samples.
• Lay-User Study: The lay-user results were compared against the GC/MS confirmed concentrations of the prepared (spiked) samples.

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 is not applicable. The device is a rapid in-vitro diagnostic (urine drug test cup) that produces a visual qualitative result (colored lines). It does not involve AI assistance, human imaging interpretation, or complex multi-reader analysis in the way an MRMC study for AI would typically be conducted. The "readers" for this device are the users themselves (laboratory assistants in comparison studies, lay-users in the lay-user study), interpreting the visual lines to determine a positive or negative result.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a qualitative rapid immunoassay, which inherently requires human observation of the test lines to interpret the result ("human-in-the-loop"). There is no "algorithm only" component that operates without human interpretation of the visual output.

7. The type of ground truth used

• GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry): Used as the confirmatory method and the gold standard for the "Comparison Studies" with clinical samples and for verifying the concentrations of spiked samples in the "Lay-User Study."
• Known/Spiked Concentrations: For the "Precision," "Cut-off," "Interference," and "Specificity" studies, samples were prepared with predetermined concentrations of the target analytes. This constitutes the ground truth for these analytical performance characteristics.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. The device is an immunoassay (lateral flow, one-step system) that operates based on antigen-antibody reactions. It is not an algorithm or AI model that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. Its performance is determined by its biochemical and physical design.

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

This is not applicable as there is no "training set" for an immunoassay device. The scientific principles of immunology (antibody-antigen binding) and chromatography govern its function.

Ask a specific question about this device