Search Results

A patient examination gloves is a disposable device intended for medical purpose that is worn on the examiner's hand or fingers to prevent contamination between patient and examiner. In addition, these gloves were tested for use with chemotherapy drugs in accordance with ASTM D6978-05 Standard Practice for Assessment of Medical gloves to Permeation by Chemotherapy Drugs.

The subject device is single use, disposable gloves intended for medical purposes to be worn on the examiner's hands to prevent contamination between patient and examiner. The gloves are powder-free, ambidextrous with beaded cuff, blue/black/purple colored, nitrile, and tested for use with chemotherapy drugs. The gloves are offered in six sizes: S, M, L, XL. The subject device is non-sterile.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Note on Cytotoxicity: The table on page 11 explicitly states "Under conditions of the study, device extract is cytotoxic." for ISO 10993-5. This appears to contradict the general conclusion that the device is "as safe, as effective." However, the predicate comparison table on page 8 indicates that the predicate device also stated "ISO 10993-5 Under conditions of the study, device extract is cytotoxic," and the subject device has a "/" for this criterion without a definitive pass/fail statement in that specific comparison table. In the non-clinical testing summary, it lists ISO 10993-5 as one of the standards conducted. If the device genuinely exhibited cytotoxicity, it would typically be a concern. Given the overall clearance, there might be further explanation or context not fully detailed in this summary (e.g., the level of cytotoxicity was deemed acceptable, or the "is cytotoxic" statement might be an error in the summary table on page 11, or the nature of the cytotoxicity and its relevance to direct patient contact for a glove was evaluated and deemed non-critical).

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

• Physical Dimensions (ASTM D6319): Not explicitly stated, but the results show ranges across sizes (S, M, L, XL).
• Watertightness Test (ASTM D5151): The results specify "0/125/Pass," indicating a sample size of 125 items (gloves) were tested, all passing (0 failures).
• Powder Content (ASTM D6124): Not explicitly stated.
• Physical Properties (ASTM D412): Not explicitly stated.
• Biocompatibility (ISO 10993-5, -10, -11): Not explicitly stated.
• Chemotherapy Drug Permeation (ASTM D6978-05): Not explicitly stated, however, the standard ASTM D6978 mandates three specimens be tested for each drug exposure for each material tested (so, 3 specimens per drug per color of glove). There are 12 drugs tested for 3 colors, so at least 3 x 12 x 3 = 108 specimens would have been tested as a minimum requirement for this standard.

The data provenance is from non-clinical bench testing conducted to relevant ASTM and ISO standards, indicating laboratory testing. The country of origin of the test data is not explicitly stated, but given the manufacturer is Jiangsu Bytech Medical Supplies Co.,Ltd. in China, it is likely the testing was performed either in China or by a certified lab contracted by the manufacturer. The data is reported retrospectively as part of the 510(k) submission.

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

This device is a physical product (gloves) and the tests conducted are bench-top performance tests and biocompatibility tests. Therefore, human experts are typically not used to establish a "ground truth" in the way they would for an AI diagnostic device (e.g., radiologists reviewing images). The ground truth is established by the methods and specifications defined in the referenced industry standards (ASTM, ISO). Laboratory technicians and chemists, qualified to perform these specific tests, would have conducted the studies.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not applicable, as this involves objective laboratory measurements against established standards, not human interpretation requiring adjudication.

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:

Not applicable. This device is a medical glove, not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool. The evaluation focuses on its physical and chemical properties.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The ground truth is based on:

• Standardized Test Methods: Specifications and methodologies outlined in ASTM (e.g., D6319, D5151, D6124, D412, D6978) and ISO standards (e.g., 10993-5, 10993-10, 10993-11).
• Objective Measurements: These standards define how properties like dimensions, watertightness, powder content, tensile strength, elongation, and drug permeation breakthrough times are measured objectively.
• Pre-defined Acceptance Criteria: The pass/fail criteria for these measurements are often specified within the standards or derived from regulatory guidance for the device type.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not a machine learning model, so there is no training set in this context.

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

Not applicable. There is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device