Search Results

GLUCOFACTS® Express Diabetes Management Software is an over-the-counter software program for use by health care professionals and patients with diabetes for transferring blood glucose data from a blood glucose meter to a personal computer for the purpose of viewing and printing reports that display blood glucose readings from Bayer's CONTOUR®, CONTOUR® TS, BREEZE®, and BREEZE®2 blood glucose meters.

GLUCOFACTS® Express Diabetes Management Software is an overthe-counter software program for use by persons with diabetes in the home and by healthcare professionals in healthcare facilities to assist with transferring blood glucose data from a blood glucose monitor to a personal computer to allow reviewing and analyzing the data to support effective diabetes management.

This software application allows the transfer of blood glucose results, along with time, date, and certain data markers, from a Bayer blood glucose meter to a personal computer through the use of a serial or USB cable. Data analysis includes allowing the home-user or healthcare professional to view the data in five different ways: 1. Electronic logbook where all of the data can be seen 2. Glucose trend of the results by date 3. Daily blood glucose trend (standard day) 4. Weekly blood glucose trend (standard week) 5. Summary chart (histogram or pie chart)

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the GLUCOFACTS® Express Data Management Software. This document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than detailing specific quantitative acceptance criteria or a comprehensive study design with technical performance metrics.

Therefore, much of the requested information (like specific quantitative acceptance criteria, detailed performance metrics, sample sizes for test and training sets, ground truth establishment methods in a technical sense, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies) is not present in the provided text. The "Performance Assessment" section is qualitative and user-focused.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document emphasizes ease of use and understandability as the key performance indicators for this software. It does not provide numerical or statistical acceptance criteria typical for diagnostic devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy).

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

• Sample Size for the Test Set: 51 people
  • 43 lay users
  • 8 healthcare professionals
• Data Provenance (Country of Origin): Not specified.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not specified, but given the nature of a user study assessing "ease of use" and "understandability," it would most likely be a prospective study where users interact with the software.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable in the context of this study. The "ground truth" for ease of use and understandability is derived from the users' experience and perceptions, not from expert consensus on a diagnostic outcome. The study involved 8 healthcare professionals, but their role was as study participants providing feedback, not as adjudicators establishing a "ground truth" for diagnostic accuracy.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable for establishing ground truth. The 8 healthcare professionals were participants, but their specific qualifications beyond being "healthcare professionals" are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. This was a user-focused study assessing subjective metrics (ease of use, understandability), not a diagnostic performance study requiring adjudication of results against a reference standard.

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

• MRMC Study Done: No. The text does not describe an MRMC study. The study focused on user experience with the software itself, not on comparing human reader performance with or without AI assistance for a diagnostic task.
• Effect Size of Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance: Not applicable, as no MRMC study was performed.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

• Standalone Study Done: Yes, in a sense. The software itself is the "device," and its standalone performance (ease of use, understandability of reports) was assessed by users interacting directly with it. However, this is not a "standalone performance" in the typical diagnostic AI context, which would involve algorithmic accuracy against a ground truth.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: User feedback and perception regarding "ease of use" and "understandability" served as the primary "ground truth" for this software's performance assessment. It did not involve expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the traditional sense for diagnostic accuracy.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for the Training Set: Not applicable. This software is described as a "data management software program" that allows "viewing and printing reports." It is not an AI/ML model that would typically have a "training set" in the context of learning patterns for prediction or diagnosis.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set Establishment: Not applicable, as there is no mention of a training set or an AI/ML model being trained.

Ask a specific question about this device