Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(199 days)
KD-575 MEMORY AUTOMATIC ELECTRONIC BLOOD PRESSURE MONITOR
The KD-575 Memory Automatic Electronic Blood Pressure Monitor is for use by medical professionals or at home and is a non-invasive blood pressure measurement system intended to measure the diastolic and systolic blood pressures and pulse rate of an adult individual by using a non-invasive, technique in which an inflatable cuff is wrapped around the upper arm. The cuff circumference is limited to 8.6614 inches to 13.78 inches
KD-575 Fuily Automatic Electronic Blood Pressure Monitor is a Non-invasive blood pressure measurement system for only one person each time. Based on oscillometric and silicon integrate pressure sensor technology, this devise is used to monitor systolic, diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate which will be shown on a LCD with an electronic interface module. Swathing the air cuff around the left upper arm 1-2cm above elbow joint automatically inflated and released by an internal pump, the device can analyze the signals promptly and display the results. It can storage and show 120 times measuring result with the month, day, time of measuring.
Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the KD-575 Fully Automatic Electronic Blood Pressure Monitor:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
Acceptance Criteria (Standard) | Reported Device Performance (Compliance) |
---|---|
ANSI/AAMI SP10-1992 Accuracy | Meets or exceeds accuracy requirements |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
The document states, "Clinical tests were performed and complied the accuracy requirements of ANSI/AAMISP10-1992." However, it does not specify the sample size for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective nature of the data).
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:
The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications. For blood pressure monitoring devices, the "ground truth" for accuracy studies typically involves a reference method (e.g., auscultatory measurement by trained observers) rather than expert consensus on images.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:
The document does not mention any adjudication method for the test set.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:
A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed, nor is it applicable for this type of device. This study design is typically used for AI-powered diagnostic imaging tools where human readers interpret medical images. Blood pressure monitors are standalone devices that provide direct measurements.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop) Performance:
Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The device itself is an automated blood pressure monitor, and the clinical tests evaluated its direct measurement accuracy against a standard (ANSI/AAMI SP10-1992). This means the device's algorithm and hardware were assessed in isolation to determine its performance.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used:
The ground truth used for assessing the device's accuracy was based on the requirements of the ANSI/AAMI SP10-1992 standard. For blood pressure monitors, this standard typically involves comparing the device's readings against simultaneous auscultatory measurements performed by trained observers using a mercury sphygmomanometer as the reference standard. While the document doesn't explicitly state "auscultatory measurements," adherence to this standard implies such a method.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set:
The document does not mention a training set size. This is expected as this is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a separate training phase with a distinct dataset. Its "algorithm" is embedded in the device's design and calibration.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
As there is no mention of a training set in the context of this traditional medical device, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set is not applicable. The device's calibration and design are likely based on engineering principles and validated against known standards, rather than by training on a labeled dataset in the machine learning sense.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1