Search Results

To collect, transport, separate and process capillary blood for testing serum in the clinical laboratory.

The Greiner MiniCollect® is a non-sterile, non-evacuated blood collection device containing a clot activator and an inert acrylic barrier material, intended to collect, transport, separate and process capillary blood for testing serum.

This document describes the Greiner MiniCollect® Serum Gel tube, a blood collection device, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The information provided heavily focuses on the regulatory submission and does not detail specific acceptance criteria or a dedicated study report with detailed performance metrics beyond a statement of "good correlation."

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing your points where possible, and noting where information is not available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal acceptance criteria (e.g., specific thresholds for correlation coefficients, bias, or agreement). Instead, it relies on demonstrating "good correlation" to the predicate device for assay results.

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

• Sample Size: The document states that "paired samples" were used, but it does not specify the number of samples or patients included in this testing.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). It's likely a retrospective or prospective study performed by the manufacturer, but this is not detailed.

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

This question is not applicable in the typical sense for this type of device. The "ground truth" here is the performance of the predicate device (Becton Dickinson's Microtainer® Brand tubes with gel separator). The assay results are objective measurements from laboratory instruments, not subjective interpretations by experts.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. There's no subjective assessment requiring adjudication. The comparison is based on quantitative assay results.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No. This type of study is typically for imaging devices or diagnostics that involve human interpretation. This device is a blood collection tube, and its performance is evaluated by chemical analysis, not human reader interpretation. Therefore, no MRMC study or effect size for human reader improvement is relevant or mentioned.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

This question is not applicable. This device is a medical product (blood collection tube) and does not involve an algorithm or AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth or reference standard for comparison was the assay results obtained from the predicate device, Becton Dickinson's Microtainer® Brand tubes with gel separator. The aim was to demonstrate that results from the Greiner MiniCollect® tubes correlate well with those from the established predicate device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This concept is not directly applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set. The "evaluation" mentioned refers to the comparison of the new device's performance against a predicate device.

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

Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device with a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device