Search Results

The intended user is any patient that needs to obtain capillary samples at home/clinical environment. Unistik Pro is a single-use lancet used to obtain a capillary blood sample.

The Unistik® Pro is a sterile single-use safety lancet, a hand-held disposable device intended to be used to achieve a controlled skin puncture on the fingertip, in order to obtain a capillary blood specimen. The Unistik® Pro sterile single-use safety lancets are indicated for use where a capillary blood specimen is required for the purposes of performing in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays, e.q., for blood glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes,

The Unistik® Pro safety lancets are available in 3 different variants, each with a different needle gauge (21G, 25G and 28G with penetration depths of 2.0mm, 1.6mm and 1.2mm respectively) as required by the patient.

The Unistik® Pro sterile single-use safety lancets are designed for prescription and over-thecounter use and to be used by self-testing patients, care-givers and healthcare professionals. The devices are designed to perform a controlled skin puncture on the finqertip, in order for caregivers and healthcare professionals to obtain capillary blood specimens from patients for IVD assays, and also for lay (home) users to be able to perform a skin puncture on themselves where an IVD self-testing regime is required. The intended user population includes male and female, right or left-handed self-administering patients, care givers and healthcare professionals. The frequency of use and intended patient population is dependent on the given diagnostic regime.

The Unistik® Pro sterile single-use safety lancets feature integral sharps protection whereby the lancet needle is shielded before and after use to prevent needlestick injuries, so mitigating the hazard of transmission of blood-borne infectious agents. Furthermore, the device automatically self-disables after a single use, thus preventing any hazards of re-use.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the Unistik® Pro, a single-use lancet. While it outlines various performance tests and acceptance criteria for mechanical and material properties, it does not contain information related to an AI/ML-driven medical device, nor does it discuss clinical studies with human readers or image analysis for establishing ground truth. The device is a physical blood lancet, not a diagnostic imaging or AI product.

Therefore, many of the requested criteria for describing an AI/ML device's acceptance criteria and study are not applicable to this document. The document primarily focuses on non-clinical performance data for a physical medical device.

However, based on the non-clinical performance data provided for this physical device, here's an attempt to answer the relevant questions to the best of my ability from the given text:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
The document does not specify the sample size for each test. It only states that "Design verification testing... has been carried out" and "All additional performance tests met the acceptance criteria." The provenance of the data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not mentioned beyond acknowledging that some prior documentation might reference "Artaplast" or other names for the device. These are bench tests, not clinical data sets.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
This information is not applicable. The ground truth for these physical tests is established through objective measurements against predefined specifications, not expert consensus on medical images or diagnoses.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for establishing ground truth in clinical imaging studies with human readers, not for physical device performance tests.

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 is a physical medical device (lancet), not an AI-driven diagnostic tool. No human reader studies with AI assistance were conducted or are relevant.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
The type of "ground truth" for these performance tests is based on pre-defined engineering and safety specifications for the physical properties of the lancet (e.g., precise needle penetration depth, force required for activation, effectiveness of sharps protection).

8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. The document describes a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable, as there is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device