Search Results

o.b. ® Tampons are used to absorb menstrual fluid or other vaginal discharge.

o.b. ® non-applicator and applicator Tampons are used to absorb menstrual fluid. The modified tampon will be available in Regular, Super, and Super Plus syngyna absorbency ranges. o.b.® non-applicator and applicator Tampons are made of commercial cotton and rayon, a polyethylene/polyester cover, and cotton or rayon string.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the modified o.b.® Tampons are primarily based on biocompatibility and user safety, demonstrating equivalence to legally marketed tampons. The performance is reported through the results of specific preclinical and clinical evaluations.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes for the preclinical or clinical evaluations.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data. The studies are referred to as "Preclinical Evaluations" and "Clinical Evaluations," implying that they were conducted specifically for this submission. The nature of these tests (e.g., vaginal irritation, microflora studies) suggests they would be prospective studies.

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

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth. The nature of the studies (biocompatibility, clinical safety) suggests that the interpretation of results would have been performed by qualified professionals (e.g., toxicologists, microbiologists, clinicians), but specifics are not given.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the test set.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically associated with diagnostic imaging or similar devices where different human readers interpret cases. Tampons are a medical device for menstrual fluid absorption, and their evaluation focuses on safety, performance, and biocompatibility, not interpretive tasks for human readers.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

This question is not applicable to the device described. The device is a physical product (tampon), not an algorithm or AI system. Therefore, there is no "standalone" algorithm performance to evaluate.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's safety and performance is established through experimental data from preclinical and clinical studies, demonstrating the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the modified tampons. The ultimate ground truth essentially compared the modified tampon's characteristics to the known safe and effective profile of the predicate device and general medical standards for such products.

• For biocompatibility: Lab test results (e.g., cytotoxicity assays, genotoxicity assays, irritation studies).
• For clinical studies: Human physiological responses (e.g., absence of sensitization, maintained vaginal microflora, absence of irritation).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical product, not an AI or machine learning model that requires a "training set."

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

This question is not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device