Search Results

The NOW Huber Clear™ Safety Infusion Set is a safety IV administration set with a non-coring, ninety-degree, right-angle Huber needle, used to access surgically implanted vascular ports. The Huber needle is used to administer fluids or to withdraw blood. The Huber Clear™ system facilitates safe removal of the needle by encapsulating the needle within the attachment wings to help prevent needlestick injuries when using the device for vascular port access.

The NOW Huber Clear™ Safety Infusion Set is a standard non-coring right angle Huber needle and administration set with a needlestick prevention feature. The Huber Clear™ Safety Infusion Set is designed for use with a vascular access infusion system. The NOW Huber Clear™ Safety Infusion Set is fabricated from biocompatible, medical grade materials. The needle is inserted into the vascular access port in a standard manner for fluid infusion or for blood sampling. Removal of the needle is done as with any standard Huber needle, using a one-handed (dominant hand) technique to pull out the needle, and stabilizing the port with the nondominant hand. As the needle is removed, the passive needlestick prevention feature actuates automatically when the users hands are positioned correctly and can be easily seen, felt, and heard by the user to ensure that the needle cover is secure. The NOW Huber Clear™ Safety Infusion Set is supplied sterile and nonpyrogenic, for single use only.

The provided document describes a medical device, the "NOW Huber Clear™ Safety Infusion Set," but it does not contain the specific information required to complete the detailed table about acceptance criteria and a study proving those criteria were met. The document states that "Equivalency performance testing has been performed on the Now Huber Clear™ Safety Infusion Set components that have been modified from the predicate Huber Plus. In addition, a Simulated Use Study was performed showing that there were no incidences of sharps injuries or incidences where the safety feature failed to be activated during the course of the study." However, it does not provide quantitative acceptance criteria, detailed performance metrics, sample sizes for the simulated use study, ground truth details, or information about expert involvement.

Therefore, much of the requested information cannot be extracted from this document.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Note: The document only provides qualitative outcomes from a "Simulated Use Study" without specific, measurable acceptance criteria or detailed numerical performance data.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in the document. The document only mentions a "Simulated Use Study."
• Data Provenance: Not specified. The document does not indicate the country of origin of the data or whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not specified. The document does not mention the involvement of experts in establishing ground truth for the "Simulated Use Study."

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not specified. There is no information regarding an adjudication method for the "Simulated Use Study."

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

• No. This device is a physical safety infusion set, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging device. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI-related metrics are not applicable.

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

• Not applicable as this is a physical medical device. The "Simulated Use Study" would have involved human users interacting with the device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• The "ground truth" for the "Simulated Use Study" appears to be direct observation of the absence of sharps injuries and successful activation of the safety feature during simulated use by actual users (though the number or type of users is not specified). This aligns most closely with performance observed during the study rather than an external, pre-established ground truth like pathology or expert consensus.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/not specified. The device is a physical product, not an AI model that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device