Search Results

For over-the-counter use, Silverlon® Wound Contact Dressing may be used for: First aid to help in minor abrasions, minor cuts, lacerations, scrapes, minor scalds and burns. Under the supervision of a health care professional, Silverlon® Wound Contact Dressing may be used for the management of: Silverlon® Wound Contact Dressings provide an effective barrier to bacterial penetration and are intended for local management of partial thickness burns, incisions, skin grafts, donor sites, lacerations, and Stage I-IV dermal ulcers (vascular, venous, pressure, and diabetic).

Silverlon® Contact Wound Dressings are made of flexible, elastomeric, sterile, silver plated fabric consisting of a knitted continuous nylon fiber substrate with a metallic silver surface containing approximately one percent silver oxide. The coating of silver is circumferential between 0.8 and 1.0 um thick. Silverlon® Contact Wound Dressings are designed to intimately contact the wound as a primary dressing and permit the passage of fluids. The silver provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination. The nylon fabric permits the passage of oxygen and fluids to and from the wound. The surface of the nylon fibers in Silverlon® Wound Contact Dressings consists of a thin layer of metallic silver containing approximately one percent silver oxide that provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Silverlon® Antimicrobial Barrier Wound Contact Dressing and related products. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and provides performance data primarily related to biocompatibility.

Here's an analysis of the requested information based only on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each biocompatibility test.
• Data Provenance: The studies were performed by North American Science Associates, Inc. (NAMSA), Northwood, Ohio, which suggests the studies were conducted in the USA. The text does not specify if they were retrospective or prospective, but in vivo biocompatibility studies are typically prospective experimental studies.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable. The performance data presented is for biocompatibility tests, which are objective laboratory (in vivo) measurements and do not rely on expert interpretation for "ground truth" in the same way clinical diagnostic studies would.

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

Not applicable. This concept is relevant for studies where human interpretation of medical data (e.g., images) is involved, not for standardized biocompatibility testing.

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 device is a wound dressing, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not an algorithm. The performance described is for the physical device itself.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

For the biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" would be the observed biological reactions and measurements against established safety limits and criteria as defined by ISO 10993 standards. It's objective, not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the clinical sense for this specific evaluation.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not an AI model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. As above, this information pertains to AI models, not physical medical devices like wound dressings.

Ask a specific question about this device

Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressings are sterile, non-adherent dressings intended for local management of partial thickness burns, incisions, skin grafts, donor sites, lacerations, abrasions, and Stage I-IV dermal ulcers (vascular, venous, pressure, and diabetic).

Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressings are designed to intimately contact the wound as a primary dressing and permit the passage of fluids. The silver provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination. The nylon fabric permits the passage of oxygen and fluids to and from the wound. The surface of the nylon fibers in Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressings consists of a thin layer of metallic silver containing approximately 1% silver oxide that provides effective protection of the dressing against microbial contamination. Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressings are made of flexible, sterile, non-adherent fabric consisting of 1 or 4 layers of a knitted continuous nylon fiber substrate with a metallic silver surface containing approximately 1% silver oxide.

The provided text describes the 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressing. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria, a detailed study report comparing device performance against those criteria, or the methodology typically associated with AI/ML device evaluations.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and biocompatibility.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request as the information is not present in the provided text. I will answer what can be extracted and clearly state what information is missing.

Request Analysis and Information Extraction

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the document. The submission is focused on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to existing predicate devices (Arglac, Acticoat, Tegapore) rather than meeting specific quantifiable performance targets. The "acceptance" by the FDA is based on this finding of substantial equivalence and adherence to general controls and specific labeling limitations.
• Reported Device Performance: Biocompatibility test results are described.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size: Not specified. The document mentions "standard in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests" but does not detail the number of samples or subjects used in these tests.
• Data Provenance: Not specified, although the testing was conducted by North American Science Associates, Inc. (NAMSA), Northwood, Ohio, USA. The study type (retrospective/prospective) is not indicated, but given it's biocompatibility testing for a medical device, it would typically be prospective pre-clinical testing.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not Applicable: This type of information is typically relevant for studies involving subjective human assessment or diagnostic accuracy, often with AI. The provided document details biocompatibility testing, which relies on standardized lab methods rather than expert consensus on ground truth in the way a diagnostic AI would.

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

• Not Applicable: Similar to point 3, adjudication methods are used to establish ground truth in subjective assessments. Biocompatibility testing results are typically objective measurements.

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: The device described (Silverlon™ Contact Wound Dressing) is a physical wound dressing, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant or applicable to this product.

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

• No: As stated above, this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• Ground Truth for Biocompatibility: The "ground truth" for the performance claims (safety and substantial equivalence) relies on the results of the "standard in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests including cytotoxicity, sensitization, acute intracutaneous reactivity, acute systemic toxicity, and tissue compatibility (muscle implantation study)." These tests follow ISO 10993 standards and represent scientifically established methods to determine biological responses to medical devices. The "ground truth" is therefore derived from standardized biological and chemical assays.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable: This concept applies to AI/ML models, not physical medical devices.

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

• Not Applicable: This concept applies to AI/ML models, not physical medical devices.

Summary Table: Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Since explicit acceptance criteria are not provided, I will interpret "acceptance criteria" here as the general requirements for substantial equivalence and safety for a wound dressing, and "reported device performance" as the outcomes of the tests conducted.

Missing Information (as per original request and not present in document):

• Specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "cytotoxicity index must be < X").
• Quantitative results of the biocompatibility tests.
• Sample sizes for the biocompatibility tests (e.g., number of animals, cell cultures).
• Details about the experts, adjudication, or ground truth establishment relevant to AI/ML devices.
• Any MRMC or standalone performance data, as the device is not AI-based.

Ask a specific question about this device