Search Results

used as a supplemental test to verify positive and equivocal results from female endocervical and male urtheral specimens in the VIDAS Chlamydia (CHL) assay and is substantially equivalent to cell culture for the qualitative detection of Chlamydia antigen.

The VIDAS Chlamydia Blocking assay is a fully automated enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (ELFA) and requires only the addition of the blocking and reference reagents to the VIDAS Chlamydia strips.

The provided text is a summary of substantial equivalence for a medical device cleared in 1996. It does not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer all aspects of your request, particularly regarding acceptance criteria, specific study design elements, and statistical analysis metrics. This is typical for older 510(k) summaries, which often focused on substantial equivalence rather than explicit performance targets and detailed study breakdowns as seen in more recent submissions.

However, I can extract the available information and highlight what is missing based on your template.

Acceptance Criteria and Study Information (Based on Available Data)

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Missing: Specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds, PPV/NPV targets) are not provided in this summary. The performance is broadly stated as "substantially equivalent" to cell culture.

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

The summary does not provide the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective nature of the study). It refers to "the data comparing the performance... to that of cell culture" in Section 8 of the submittal, which is not provided here.

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

The summary does not provide this information.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The summary does not provide this information.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done

No, based on the description, this was a standalone device performance study comparing the VIDAS Chlamydia Blocking assay to cell culture as the reference method. MRMC studies are typically for image-based diagnostic aids and involve human interpretation, which is not the case for this automated immunoassay.

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

Yes, this was a standalone performance study of the VIDAS Chlamydia Blocking assay. It is an automated enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (ELFA) and does not involve human interpretation of the assay results in a "human-in-the-loop" manner.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for comparison was cell culture. The text explicitly states: "The data comparing the performance of the VIDAS Chlamydia Blocking assay to that of cell culture..." and that "The VIDAS Chlamydia Blocking assay...is substantially equivalent to cell culture for the qualitative detection of Chlamydia antigen."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The summary does not provide information on a training set size. For an immunoassay like this, the "training" might refer to assay development and optimization, rather than a distinct training set in the machine learning sense. The available text describes the performance study rather than the development process.

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

The summary does not provide this information, as it doesn't describe a traditional "training set" or its ground truth establishment.

In summary: The provided text is a high-level summary from a 1996 510(k) submission focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence. It lacks the quantitative performance metrics, detailed study design parameters (like sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods), and specific acceptance criteria that are commonly found in more recent regulatory documents or required by your detailed template. The core comparison was against cell culture as the gold standard.

Ask a specific question about this device