Search Results

Stat Medical Lancing Device Systems are intended for the hygienic collection of capillary blood for testing purposes from the side of a finger and from alternate site, such as the palm, the upper arm, and the forearm. The Stat Medical Lancing Device Systems are for single patient use in a home setting.

The Stat Medical Lancing Device Systems consist of two types of lancing devices: ULTIMATE Lancing Device and TRIO Lancing Device. Both are single-person, multiple-use devices made of ABS plastic and SUS304 stainless-steel springs. The ULTIMATE has 8 depth-setting choices, and the TRIO has 5 depth-setting choices and a Lancet Ejector. The systems also consist of two types of representative (generic) lancets: COMFORT THIN Twist-Off Lancets and COMFORT THIN Pull-Off Lancets. Both are sterile, single-person, single use devices made of plastic with a SUS304 stainless-steel needle tip and a protective plastic cover. The ULTIMATE and TRIO Lancing Devices have optional Alternative Site Test (AST) Caps.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the "STAT Medical Lancing Device Systems." It discusses the device's intended use, technological comparison to predicate devices, and results of non-clinical testing. However, it explicitly states that clinical testing was not applicable and therefore, it does not contain information about a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria based on clinical performance metrics such as reader studies or algorithm performance.

The document mainly focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical specifications and non-clinical performance (mechanical testing and biocompatibility).

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to describe the acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria in the context of clinical performance (like a multi-reader multi-case study, standalone algorithm performance, or human-in-the-loop improvement) because such information is not present in the provided text.

The information that is available and can be extracted relates to the acceptance criteria for non-clinical performance tests.

Non-Clinical Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the successful completion and compliance with the listed ISO standards and the performance tests. The reported performance indicates that the device met these criteria.

Regarding the specific points asked for in the prompt, based on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: See table above, derived from the "Non-clinical Testing Summary and Conclusions" and the "Similarities and Differences" table.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:
   • Sample Size: For "Range of Depth (mm)" and "Range of Depth + AST Cap (mm)" measurements, a sample size of 30 samples is explicitly mentioned for both the Ultimate and TRIO Lancing Devices. For other mechanical tests (Pen testing, cock force, insertion force, removal force, migration distance), sample sizes are not explicitly stated but are implied to be sufficient for compliance.
   • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the data or whether the tests were retrospective or prospective. These are non-clinical lab tests.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. This document is about a lancet device, not an AI/imaging device requiring expert ground truth for image interpretation. The testing performed is mechanical and biocompatibility, which does not involve human expert interpretation as ground truth.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable, as there is no expert adjudication process described for the mechanical or 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: No. The device is a lancing system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Clinical testing was explicitly stated as "not applicable."
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: No. The device is a lancing system.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable. For mechanical tests, the "ground truth" is adherence to engineering specifications and performance within defined ranges. For biocompatibility, it's compliance with ISO standards.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device