Search Results

The Rightest Blood Glucose Monitoring System, Model GM550 is intended for the quantitative measurement of glucose in capillary whole blood from the fingertip, palm and forearm by professional healthcare personnel in clinical settings or diabetics at home to measure the glucose concentration for aiding diabetes management.

This device is not intended for testing neonate blood samples and is not intended for the diagnosis of or screening for diabetes mellitus.

Rightest Blood Glucose Test Strips GS550 are intended for use with the Rightest GM550 Blood Glucose meter in the quantitative measurement of glucose in capillary whole blood from the fingertip, palm and forearm.

Rightest Control Solutions are intended for use with the Rightest Blood Glucose Monitoring System, Model GM550 to check that both the glucose meters and test strips are working properly. These solutions contain a known range of glucose, as indicated on the bottles.

Our Blood Glucose Monitoring System consists of a Meter, Blood Glucose Test Strips, Two Control Solutions, Lancing Device and lancets. The Rightest Meter, Blood Glucose Test Strips, and Lancing Device are manufactured by BIONIME Corporation. The Rightest Meter, when used with the Rightest Test Strips Blood Glucose Test Strips, quantitatively measures glucose in fresh capillary whole blood. The performance of the Rightest Blood Glucose Monitoring System is verified by the Control Solution.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Rightest Blood Glucose Monitoring System, Model GM550, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document implicitly uses performance criteria commonly accepted for blood glucose monitoring systems, specifically focusing on agreement with a laboratory reference method. The acceptance criteria and reported performance are grouped by glucose concentration ranges.

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

• Sample Size: A total of 114 patients participated in the system accuracy study.
  • For glucose concentrations < 75 mg/dL, there were 19 samples.
  • For glucose concentrations ≥ 75 mg/dL, there were 95 samples.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. The submitter's identification lists BIONIME CORPORATION in Taichung County, TAIWAN, which suggests the study was likely conducted in Taiwan. The study was prospective in nature, as patients collected and tested their own blood samples for the study.

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

• The ground truth was established by a laboratory instrument, not by human experts. The reference method used was the Olympus 2700, which is a lab instrument.
• The document does not specify any number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth, as an automated instrument was used.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• There was no explicit adjudication method described. The comparison was directly between the Rightest meter's reading and the result from the Olympus 2700 lab instrument.

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:

• No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a blood glucose monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool requiring human reader interpretation in the context of typical MRMC studies. The "User Performance Study" was to demonstrate lay consumers could obtain accurate results, focusing on usability rather than reader improvement with AI assistance.

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

• Yes, the system accuracy study evaluated the device's performance (Rightest meter with test strips) in a standalone manner by comparing its readings directly against a laboratory reference instrument (Olympus 2700). The user performance study involved human users, but the "standalone performance" of the device itself (measurement accuracy) was assessed against the lab reference.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth used was laboratory instrument reference values (plasma glucose values on an Olympus 2700 lab instrument).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" or its sample size. For medical devices like blood glucose monitors, analytical performance studies (like linearity, precision, interference) and clinical accuracy studies are conducted, rather than machine learning-style training and test sets in the typical sense. The 114 patients and their samples described in the "System Accuracy Study" would represent the clinical validation data, not a training set.

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

• As a training set is not explicitly referred to in the context of this device's validation, the method for establishing its ground truth is not applicable or detailed. The ground truth for the clinical validation was established by the Olympus 2700 lab instrument.

Ask a specific question about this device