Search Results

ERI Portable X-ray System is a portable x-ray source with a fixed tube current and voltage for producing x-ray images of extremities using computed radiography (CR) detection plate or digital radiography (DR) detector, and the applicable objects are adults. This product is for use by qualified personnel.

It is not intended to replace a radiographic system with variable tube current and voltage (kVp) which may be required for full optimization of image quality and radiation exposure for different exam types.

ERI Portable X-ray System generates and controls X-ray with a fixed tube current and voltage (kV). It uses X light source to produce X-ray images of human anatomical structures for diagnosis, and the applicable objects are adults. It operates on 14.4VDC supplied by a rechargeable Lithium-Ion Polymer battery pack.

The ERI Portable X-ray System, is a portable x-ray device that comes in three models: CVX-air, CVX-lite and CVX-E. The differences is as follows:
X-ray tube voltage: CVX-air 70kV, CVX-lite 67 kV, CVX-E 60 kV
X-ray tube current: CVX-air 1mA, CVX-lite 0.8mA, CVX-E 0.6mA
Power Consumption: CVX-air 70 W, CVX-lite 53.6 W, CVX-E 36W
Others are the same as CVX-air
The main model and series models have the same internal and external appearance, only the X-ray irradiation parameter settings are different

The X-ray tube head, X-ray controls and power source are assembled in a portable case. The ERI Portable X-ray System is comprised of the following components:

• (1) X-ray module
• (2) Oscillating circuit board
• (3) Control board
• (4) Beam limiting device
• (5) LCD screen
• (6) Extension wire control
• (7) rechargeable battery.

The provided text details the FDA 510(k) clearance for the ERI Portable X-ray System and includes information about non-clinical testing and comparison to a predicate device. However, it does not contain the specific acceptance criteria for a study or a detailed description of a study that explicitly proves the device meets those criteria with quantitative outcomes like sensitivity, specificity, or improvement effect sizes. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through technological comparisons and adherence to relevant standards.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is present and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Not explicitly provided in the document. The document states "The results confirm that the device's design is appropriate and effective for its intended use" and "clinical trials were conducted to compare the imaging results of the ERI Portable X-ray System with those obtained from commercially available X-ray devices. These trials demonstrated that the image quality produced by the ERI system is on par with that of the comparison devices, supporting its substantial equivalence as a portable X-ray system."

However, neither specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum diagnostic accuracy, image quality scores) nor quantifiable performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, observer agreement, SNR, CNR values) are reported in the text for the subject device or the predicate.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

Not explicitly provided. The document vaguely states "clinical trials were conducted" but does not give the sample size (number of images, number of patients) of the test set, nor the country of origin of the data, or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

Not explicitly provided. The document refers to "clinical trials" and "image quality produced by the ERI system is on par with that of the comparison devices," which implies some form of assessment, likely by experts. However, the number and qualifications of these experts are not specified.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not explicitly provided. Due to the lack of detail on how the "clinical trials" and "image quality" assessments were performed, the adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 consensus, or independent review) is not mentioned.

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

Not explicitly mentioned as an MRMC study. The document states "clinical trials were conducted to compare the imaging results of the ERI Portable X-ray System with those obtained from commercially available X-ray devices." While this implies a comparison, it doesn't specify if it was a formal MRMC study or if it measured an effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance. The device described is an X-ray source and system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, so an MRMC study related to AI might not be applicable here.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Not applicable/Not provided. The ERI Portable X-ray System is an X-ray hardware system, not a software algorithm that performs standalone diagnostic tasks without human interaction. Therefore, a standalone algorithm performance study, as typically done for AI/CAD devices, is not relevant to this submission and is not described.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used for the Test Set

Not explicitly provided with specifics. The statement "image quality produced by the ERI system is on par with that of the comparison devices" suggests that the ground truth for image quality was likely established by expert assessment or comparison against an accepted standard for diagnostic image quality. However, the exact nature (e.g., expert consensus on diagnostic usability, specific phantoms, or clinical outcomes) is not detailed.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable/Not provided. As this is a hardware device for X-ray imaging, there isn't a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The device's performance is validated through engineering tests and clinical evaluations, not by training a model on a dataset.

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

Not applicable/Not provided. See the explanation for point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device