Search Results

A powder-free surgeon's glove is a disposable device made of synthetic material that may bear a trace amount of glove powder and is intended to be worn on the hands, usually in surgical settings, to provide a barrier against potentially infectious materials and other contaminants.

The gloves are made of polyisoprene synthetic latex and green colored. They are washed with Ammonia solution to leach off mold release powder, chemical and protein before they are chlorinated and inner coated with the solution of coating material for ease of donning. The gloves are tested for pinhole by water leak test machine. They are sterilized by gamma irradiation.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the Medigloves® Sterile Powder-free Synthetic Polyisoprene Surgical Gloves:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
   The document does not specify the exact sample size for each test condition. However, it indicates that testing was performed according to established ASTM standards (D3577-01a22, D5151-99, D6124-01, D3577-01a82) for physical properties, pinholes, powder content, and sterility. These standards inherently define the minimum sample sizes and methodologies for testing.
   The primary irritation and sensitization testing were conducted on rabbits and mice, respectively. No specific numbers of animals are provided.
   The data provenance is from nonclinical laboratory and animal data, indicating controlled studies rather than human data. The geographical origin of these studies is not explicitly stated, but the manufacturer is based in Thailand.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   Not applicable (N/A). The "ground truth" for the performance criteria is established by adherence to recognized international standards (ASTM) for glove manufacturing and testing, and by established protocols for biocompatibility testing in animal models. This does not involve human expert consensus in the same way clinical diagnostic studies would.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   Not applicable (N/A). Performance against pre-defined engineering and biological standards does not typically involve human adjudication in the same manner as clinical interpretation. The tests yield objective measurements or observations (e.g., pass/fail for pinholes, measured powder levels, observed irritation reactions).

4. 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:
   Not applicable (N/A). This device is a surgical glove, not a diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted device. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI assistance are irrelevant to its evaluation.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Not applicable (N/A). This device is a physical product, not an algorithm.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
   The ground truth is based on:

   • Adherence to recognized industry standards: ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) specifications for physical properties, pinholes, powder content, and sterility. These standards define measurable thresholds for acceptable performance.
   • Biological responses: Observed reactions (or lack thereof) in animal models for primary irritation and sensitization.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   Not applicable (N/A). This device is not an AI/machine learning model, so there is no concept of a "training set."

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   Not applicable (N/A). As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device