Search Results

The Merits Health Products Portable Nebulizers are designed to deliver the prescribed liquid medication to treat patients' respiratory disorders, such as asthma, allergies, and bronchitis. The device is not intended for life support nor does it provide any patient monitoring capabilities.

The Merits Health Products Portable Nebulizer system consists of a DC powered piston-type compressor that generates compressed air. Small, lightweight and designed for convenience, the Merits device offers the user a choice of running off of AC power via a universal adapter or DC power via an option 12 volt auto adapter or an optional rechargeable battery pack. The device consists of a motor driven piston compressor, a printed circuit board and a switch. The circuit board does not incorporate a microprocessor but serves as a means to prevent double feed of power. The circuit board is not a part of the charging circuit for the battery pack.

The nebulizer, which employs a venturi effect to convert the medication into a fine aerosol mist, is used snapped directly onto the compressor outlet. The nebulizer is designed for single patient use, specifically for use only with the Merits compressor. Use different kinds of compressors may impair the performance.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Merits Health Products Portable Nebulizer, submitted to the FDA in 2006. This document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices rather than presenting a performance study with detailed acceptance criteria and testing against those criteria in a typical clinical study format.

Key takeaway regarding performance data in this document:

The document explicitly states: "The results of the testing confirm that the device meets specifications and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device." However, it does not provide specific acceptance criteria or detailed results of these tests. It only makes a general statement of compliance and equivalence.

Therefore, many of the requested sections regarding detailed acceptance criteria, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, and expert involvement cannot be extracted directly from this document. The study mentioned is primarily a verification and validation study to demonstrate the device meets its own internal specifications and is comparable to predicate devices.

Here's an attempt to answer as much as possible based on the provided text, with clear indications where the information is not present:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Additional Study Information

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

   • Sample Size: Not specified. The document refers to "testing" performed, but does not provide details on the number of units tested or any patient data.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified. The manufacturer is Merits Health Products Co., LTD. in Taichung, Taiwan R.O.C., which is likely where the testing would have been conducted or overseen. The data type is related to device performance, not clinical patient data.
   • Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable to the type of engineering/performance testing described.

2. 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 applicable. The "testing" referred to is likely engineering and performance verification against internal specifications and potentially comparison with predicate device specifications, not a clinical study requiring expert ground truth in the medical sense.

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

   • Not applicable. This concept is relevant for clinical studies with subjective assessments, which is not the nature of the "testing" described here.

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

   • No. This study is for a portable nebulizer, which is a medical device for drug delivery, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. MRMC studies are not relevant here.

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

   • No. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • Not applicable in the clinical sense. The "ground truth" for the device's technical performance would be its design specifications, industry standards, and the performance characteristics of its predicate devices.

7. The sample size for the training set

   • Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI-driven device.

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

   • Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI-driven device.

Summary of what the document implies about "Performance Data":

The "Performance Data" section (9.9) is very brief and generic. It states that "The results of the testing confirm that the device meets specifications and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device." This suggests that a series of tests (likely bench testing, electrical safety, biocompatibility of materials, and performance characteristics related to nebulization, such as aerosol output rates and particle size distribution, which are typical for nebulizers) were conducted to ensure the device performs as intended and is comparable to the predicate devices. However, the exact nature of these tests, their specific criteria, and the raw results are not included in this summary document. The 510(k) process primarily relies on demonstrating "substantial equivalence," meaning that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This is often achieved through comparison of technological characteristics and, if necessary, performance testing to show that differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device