Search Results

The intended use is the same.

The revised Arbor Medical Syringefilter is as safe and effective as the original. The proposed plastic housings and membrane have passed Class VI testing as did the original housings and membrane. The proposed product is manufactured the same as the original. The method of sterilization is the same as the original version.

Given the input, there is no information about acceptance criteria, device performance, specific studies, sample sizes, expert involvement, or any of the detailed aspects requested in the prompt.

The provided text is a very brief "Summary of Safety and Effectiveness" for a device called "Arbor Medical Syringefilter" (K960928) from 1997. It makes general statements about the revised product being "as safe and effective as the original" and mentions some basic tests like "Class VI testing" and "HIMA Challenge" for a 0.2um filter. However, it does not provide any quantitative data, specific study designs, or detailed methodologies.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request based on the provided text. I can only report that:

• No acceptance criteria or reported device performance are present in the text.
• No studies proving the device meets acceptance criteria are described.
• No information regarding sample sizes, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, or training set details is available in the provided document.

Ask a specific question about this device