Search Results

Nitrile Powder Free Examination Glove Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs and Fentanyl Citrate (Blue) is a nonsterile disposable device intended for medical purpose that is worn on the examiner's hand to prevent contamination between patient and examiner. It is also tested to be used against Chemotherapy Drugs and Fentanyl Citrate.

Nitrile Powder Free Examination Glove Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs and Fentanyl Citrate (Blue) is a disposable single-use, non- sterile, blue-colored and powder-free examination glove made from nitrile latex. Gloves meet the specification of ASTM D6319-19 and have been tested for resistance to permeation by chemotherapy drugs and fentanyl citrate as per ASTM D6978-05(2019).

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for a medical device: "Nitrile Powder Free Examination Glove Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs and Fentanyl Citrate (Blue)".

This document does not describe the acceptance criteria or a study related to an AI/ML powered device. Instead, it details the testing and comparison of a physical medical device (gloves) against a predicate device, focusing on material properties, performance standards (like resistance to permeation by chemotherapy drugs and fentanyl citrate), and biocompatibility.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding AI/ML device acceptance criteria or related studies from this document. The questions about sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth, and training sets are not applicable to the type of device described in this FDA submission.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and performance data for the physical device as described:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The primary performance criterion for the "Nitrile Powder Free Examination Glove Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs and Fentanyl Citrate (Blue)" is its resistance to permeation by chemotherapy drugs and fentanyl citrate. The acceptance criterion is a minimum breakthrough detection time for each substance.

Additional Acceptance Criteria and Performance Data (already met by similar predicate device or physical properties):

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

The document mentions that "Fentanyl citrate permeation testing was performed on the subject glove using the ASTM D6978 method." While it confirms the test was done, it does not specify the sample size for the test set used for the permeation testing.
The data provenance is from Malaysia, where the manufacturer (Hartalega NGC Sdn. Bhd.) is located. The study appears to be prospective testing conducted specifically for this 510(k) submission.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

This is not applicable as the "ground truth" for this device is established through physical and chemical testing against industry standards (ASTM D6978, D6319, D5151, D6124, ISO 10993) rather than expert consensus on medical images or diagnoses.

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

Not applicable, as this involves standardized physical and chemical laboratory testing, not human expert adjudication.

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:

Not applicable. This is a medical glove, not an AI/ML-powered device.

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

Not applicable. This is a medical glove, not an AI/ML-powered device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The ground truth is established through standardized laboratory testing protocols (ASTM D6978-05, D6319-19, D5151-19, D6124-06(R17), ISO 10993-10, ISO 10993-11) and the measured chemical permeation times and physical properties of the gloves.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This is a medical glove, not an AI/ML-powered device. There is no concept of a "training set" in this context.

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

Not applicable. There is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Nitrile Powder Free Examination Glove Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs and Fentanyl Citrate is a specialty medical glove which is a disposable device intended for medical purpose that is worn on the examiner's hand or finger to prevent contamination between examiner and patient. The glove was tested for use with Chemotherapy Drugs and Fentanyl Citrate as per ASTM D6978-05 Standard Practice for Assessment of Medical Gloves to Permeation by Chemotherapy Drugs.

The subject device is single use, disposable gloves intended for medical purposes to be worn on the examiner's hands to prevent contamination between patient and examiner. The gloves are powder-free, ambidextrous with beaded cuff, blue colored, nitrile, and tested for use with chemotherapy drugs and Fentanyl Citrate. The gloves are offered in five sizes: XS, S, M, L, XL. The subject device is non-sterile.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device: "Nitrile Powder Free Examination Glove Tested for Use with Chemotherapy Drugs and Fentanyl Citrate." It seeks to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

The study described here is NOT for an AI/ML device, but rather for a physical medical device (examination gloves). Therefore, many of the requested items (e.g., number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone algorithm performance, AI system effect size, sample size for training set, ground truth for training set) are not applicable to this type of device and are not present in the provided text.

However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria and how the physical glove device meets those criteria.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria and device performance are primarily based on established ASTM and ISO standards for examination gloves, particularly concerning physical properties, integrity, and resistance to permeation by chemotherapy drugs.

Study Information (as applicable to a physical medical device)

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

   • Watertightness Test (Holes): 125 samples (0/125 / Pass).
   • Physical Dimensions, Powder Content, Physical Properties (Tensile Strength, Elongation): Specific sample sizes for these tests are not explicitly stated, but are implied by the standard test methods (e.g., ASTM D6319, ASTM D6124, ASTM D412). Generally, these are conducted on a statistically significant number of samples per batch/lot to ensure quality.
   • Biocompatibility Testing: The number of samples/animals used in ISO 10993 tests is not specified in this summary but would be detailed in the full test reports.
   • Chemotherapy Permeation Testing: The number of samples tested per drug (as per ASTM D6978-05) is not specified in this summary.
   • Data Provenance: The manufacturing entity is RMKH Glove (Cambodia) Co., Ltd. (Cambodia). The testing was conducted "in accordance with" various international standards (ASTM, ISO). The specific laboratories conducting the tests are not named, nor is it explicitly stated if the data is retrospective or prospective, though for
     510(k) submissions, bench testing is typically performed prospectively for the submission.

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

   • This is not applicable as the "ground truth" for this device is based on objective, quantifiable physical and chemical properties measured according to established international standards (ASTM, ISO), rather than expert interpretation of a diagnostic output.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable for objective physical and chemical bench testing. Test results are pass/fail based on pre-defined criteria from recognized standards.

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. This is a physical medical device (examination glove), not an AI-powered diagnostic device.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (examination glove), not an AI-powered diagnostic device.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • Objective Measurement Data: The "ground truth" (or more appropriately, the performance benchmark) is established through adherence to recognized international standards and specifications for glove manufacturing and performance. This includes:
     • Physical dimensions
     • Mechanical properties (tensile strength, elongation)
     • Integrity (freedom from holes)
     • Chemical properties (powder content)
     • Biocompatibility (cytotoxicity, irritation, sensitization, systemic toxicity)
     • Permeation resistance to specific chemicals (chemotherapy drugs, fentanyl citrate).
   • These are quantifiable measurements against pre-defined thresholds outlined in standards like ASTM D6319, ASTM D5151, ASTM D6124, ASTM D412, ISO 10993 series, and ASTM D6978.

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device; there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm. The manufacturing process and formulation are developed to meet these standards.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

   • Not applicable. There is no "training set" or "ground truth for the training set" in the context of AI/ML algorithms for this device. The product development process aims to manufacture a device that consistently meets the performance specifications defined by the relevant ASTM and ISO standards.

Note on Biocompatibility (Cytotoxicity): The report states "Under conditions of the study, device extract is cytotoxic." However, the overall conclusion is that the device "passed" biocompatibility tests. This apparent contradiction is common in 510(k) summaries where initial in-vitro tests might show some cytotoxic effect, but subsequent analysis (e.g., considering dose, route of exposure, or the results of in-vivo tests like irritation or systemic toxicity) determines that the observed cytotoxicity is not clinically significant or that the device is still considered safe for its intended use. Without the full biocompatibility report, the exact rationale for this "pass" despite measurable cytotoxicity cannot be fully detailed.

Ask a specific question about this device