Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K972576
    Date Cleared
    1998-01-22

    (196 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    866.2660
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    GRAM POSITIVE AUTOIDENTIFICATION PLATES, SENSITITRE AP90

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Sensititre AP90 panel is an in vitro diagnostic product intended to be used in conjunction with the Sensititre system for the automated identification of clinically significant gram positive organisms. This 510(k) is for gram positive identification.

    Device Description

    The Sensititre AP90 panel is an in vitro diagnostic product. The panel has a 4 by 8 layout of reagents repeated 3 times across the plate. Reagents include UREA, ESCULIN, ARGININE, FR13, FR16, RHAMNOSE, FR15, MANNITOL, FR14, TREHALOSE, FR17, MALTOSE, FR18, FR19, FR20, FR21, FR22, FR23, GLYCEROL, FR24, FR25, GLUCOSE, SUCROSE, FR26, FR27, B-METHYL GLUCOSIDE, FR28, FR29, SORBITOL, FR30, FR32, FR31. FR indicates Fluorescent reagent. The Urease test requires an oil overlay.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding the "Gram Positive Autoidentification Plates, Sensititre AP90" device. While it authorizes the marketing of the device and lists the intended use and organisms for testing, it does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria or a study summary proving the device meets said criteria.

    The letter is a regulatory approval document stating that the device is substantially equivalent to a previously marketed device. It does not elaborate on the performance studies that led to this determination. Without access to the actual 510(k) submission (K972576), it's impossible to provide the specific information requested about acceptance criteria and the study details.

    Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based solely on the provided text. The text refers to the device being "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, which implies that its performance would be expected to be similar, but it doesn't detail the specific performance metrics or studies.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1