LogoFDA 510(k) Search
Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K981760
    Device Name
    PLAYTEX SILK GLIDE ODOR ABSORBING FLUSHABLE CARDBOARD TAMPONS #13598
    Manufacturer
    PLAYTIME PRODUCTS, INC.
    Date Cleared
    1998-07-22

    (64 days)

    Product Code
    HEB
    Regulation Number
    884.5470
    Type
    Traditional
    Panel
    Obstetrics/Gynecology
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    PLAYTEX SILK GLIDE ODOR ABSORBING FLUSHABLE CARDBOARD TAMPONS #13598

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Unscented menstrual tampons for absorption of menstrual fluid.

    Device Description

    Unscented menstrual tampons for the absorption of menstrual fluid.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device (Playtex Tampons). It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not include information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets specific performance criteria in the context of an AI/algorithm-driven device.

    The document is a regulatory submission for a physical product (tampons) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence according to FDA regulations existing in 1998. It references nonclinical testing related to biocompatibility and safety (e.g., sensitization, irritation, toxicity, Dioxin analysis, TSST-1 toxin testing) to show that the new tampon has the same technological characteristics and mode of action as previously cleared predicate devices.

    Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to describe acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as outlined in your prompt because the provided text does not contain this type of information.

    Specifically, it lacks:

    1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: The document mentions "nonclinical testing" but no specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria for those tests are presented in a table format.
    2. Sample size, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method for a test set: This information is not relevant to the type of substantial equivalence submission for a physical product like a tampon.
    3. MRMC comparative effectiveness study or standalone algorithm performance: These are concepts related to AI/algorithm performance and are not applicable to the submitted document.
    4. Type of ground truth, training set sample size, how ground truth was established for a training set: Also not applicable to this type of device submission.

    The document's purpose is to establish substantial equivalence for a physical medical device, not to present performance data for an AI/algorithm.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1