Search Results

MICROALBUSTIX Reagent Strips (OTC) are intended for home use by testing persons at risk for developing kidney damage
MICROALBUSTIX Reagent Strips (OTC) are firm plastic strips that contain two reagent areas to test for small amounts of albumin in urine (microalbuminuria), creatinine in urine, and also determine the albumin-to-creatinine ratio in urine. The strips are read visually by comparing the color of the reacted strip to the color chart on the bottle label. MICROALBUSTIX Reagent Strips (OTC) provide semiquantitative results and are intended for home use by persons at risk of developing kidney disease.

MICROALBUSTIX Reagent Strips (OTC) are firm plastic strips that contain two reagent areas to test for microalbumin (low concentration of albumin) and creatinine in urine. MICROALBUSTIX Reagent Strips (OTC) are dipped into a urine specimen and "read" visually by comparing the color of the strip to a color chart on the label. In addition to providing an albumin and a creatinine result, an albumin-to-creatinine ratio can also be determined. Semi-quantitative results are available within one minute.

The provided text describes the MICROALBUSTIX™ Reagent Strips (OTC) and the study conducted to demonstrate their performance. Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative table. However, the performance assessment concludes and effectively acts as the acceptance criteria that were met.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "clinical and home use settings" and that "studies demonstrated that lay users can obtain clinical test results," implying a test set, but the number of participants or urine samples is not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, though it's implied the studies were conducted in the US, as it's a US FDA submission. It refers to "clinical and home use settings," but doesn't specify if the data was retrospective or prospective.

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

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated. The study compared results obtained by lay users to "currently used laboratory tests for microalbumin and creatinine in urine" and to "results obtained by health care professionals." This implies that the ground truth was established by laboratory methods and/or healthcare professionals, but the specific number or qualifications of these professionals beyond their general role are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not explicitly stated. The document indicates a comparison between lay user results and "current methods" or "health care professionals," but doesn't describe any specific adjudication process (e.g., 2+1 review, etc.).

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done, and the Effect Size:

• MRMC Study: The description implies a type of comparative effectiveness study in that lay users' performance was compared to "current methods" or "health care professionals." However, it is not formally described as a "Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study" in the context of radiology or similar fields where that term is often used. It's more of a comparison of a new device's home-user performance against established laboratory/professional methods.
• Effect Size: Not quantified. The study concludes that lay users can obtain "substantially equivalent" and "comparable" results, but no specific effect size (e.g., in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy improvement, or statistical significance of performance differences) is provided.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was Done:

• Yes, in a way. The device itself is a "standalone" diagnostic device (reagent strip with visual read). The "human-in-the-loop" is the lay user who reads the strip. The study explicitly tests the performance of the device as read by lay users against established laboratory methods, which is the intended standalone performance from the user's perspective. It's not an "algorithm-only" study in the modern AI sense, but rather a study of the device's performance when used as intended without professional interpretation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Ground Truth: The ground truth was established using "currently used laboratory tests for microalbumin and creatinine in urine." This suggests a laboratory reference method or clinical gold standard as the ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not mentioned. The document describes performance assessment through clinical and home-use studies, but does not provide information about a separate training set. This is typical for traditional (non-AI/machine learning) diagnostic devices, which don't have a "training set" in the same way.

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

• Not applicable, as a "training set" in the context of machine learning is not described for this device. The device's performance relies on the chemical reactions of the reagent strips.

Ask a specific question about this device

MICROALBUSTIX Reagent Strips are for screening urine specimens for microalbuminuria as an aid in the detection of patients at risk for developing kidney damage. MICROALBUSTIX Reagent Strips are for professional use in point-of-care testing locations such as physician office laboratories, clinics, and hospitals.

MICROALBUSTIX Reagent Strips are firm plastic strips that contain two reagent areas to test for microalbumin (low concentration of albumin) and creatinine in urine. MICROALBUSTIX Reagent Strips are dipped into a urine specimen and "read" visually by comparing the color of the strip to a color chart on the label. In addition to providing an albumin and a creatinine result, an albumin-to-creatinine ratio can also be determined. Semi-quantitative results are available within one minute.

The MICROALBUSTIX™ Reagent Strips were studied to assess their performance in clinical settings. The studies aimed to demonstrate that typical users in decentralized point-of-care laboratories could obtain clinical test results substantially equivalent to currently used tests for microalbumin and creatinine in urine.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative "acceptance criteria" for performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy in a tabular format. Instead, it describes the expected performance and concludes "substantial equivalence."

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify the exact sample size (number of patients or urine specimens) used for the clinical performance studies.
• Data Provenance: The studies were conducted in "clinical settings by typical users of the system," indicating real-world or simulated real-world usage. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the submission is to the U.S. FDA, suggesting the studies were likely conducted in the U.S. There is no explicit mention of whether the data was retrospective or prospective, but the phrase "studied in clinical settings" suggests a prospective collection of data for the purpose of the study.

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

The document does not provide details on the number of experts used or their specific qualifications for establishing ground truth. The comparison was made against "currently used tests for microalbumin and creatinine in urine," implying that these established methods served as the reference standard (ground truth).

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

The document does not describe any adjudication method used for the test set. The comparison was directly against "currently used tests."

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

The document describes studies where "typical users" read the strips and their results were compared to established methods. However, it does not explicitly state that a formal Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was performed in the context of comparing human readers with and without AI assistance. The device is a visual dip-and-read strip with no explicit AI component mentioned. Therefore, there's no reported effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance)

The device is described as a "dip-and-read reagent strip" where results are "read visually by comparing the color of the strip to a color chart on the label." This indicates that human interpretation is integral to its operation. There is no mention of an "algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance" as the technology relies on visual comparison by a human user.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth was established by "currently used tests for microalbumin and creatinine in urine." This suggests that established laboratory methods or predicate devices served as the reference standard.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" or its sample size. The performance assessment describes "studies... in clinical settings by typical users" comparing to existing methods, implying a validation or test set rather than a distinct training set in the context of machine learning. Since this is a colorimetric strip read by eye, there isn't typically a machine learning "training set" in the conventional sense.

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

As no explicit "training set" is mentioned in the context of machine learning, this question is not applicable. For the development and verification of the device's colorimetric reactions and scales (which might be analogous to "training" in a broader sense), the ground truth for establishing the color chart would have been based on known concentrations of albumin and creatinine, but the document does not specify this process.

Ask a specific question about this device