Search Results

Powder free vinyl patient examination glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the examiner's hand or finger to prevent contamination between patient and examiner.

powder free vinyl patient examination gloves (white, yellow) that meets all of the requirements of ASTM standard D 5250-00t4.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the "Powder Free Vinyl Patient Examination Gloves, Colored (White, Yellow)":

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and 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)

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for testing each characteristic (Dimension, Physical Properties, Freedom from Pinhole, Powder Residual, Biocompatibility).

The data provenance is not specified regarding country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective. The studies were conducted to meet "ASTM standard D 5250-00-4, per ASTM D6124-01, per 21 CFR 800.20 and ISO10993-10," which are international and US standards. The testing itself would typically be prospective for these types of device characteristics.

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)

This information is not applicable to this type of device and study. The testing for examination gloves involves physical and chemical property measurements against established international and regulatory standards, not expert interpretation of qualitative data.

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

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessments, often in medical imaging or clinical trials, to resolve discrepancies. The tests for these gloves are objective measurements against defined standards.

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

This information is not applicable. MRMC studies are relevant for AI-assisted diagnostic devices or imaging systems. This document describes a medical device (examination gloves) that does not involve human "readers" or Artificial Intelligence.

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

This information is not applicable. This device is a physical product (examination gloves), not an algorithm or AI system.

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

The "ground truth" for the performance characteristics of these gloves is defined by the specified ASTM and CFR standards. These standards provide objective measurement methodologies and acceptance limits for physical dimensions, tensile strength, elongation, freedom from pinholes, and powder residue. For biocompatibility, the ground truth is established by the results of animal testing (rabbits and guinea pigs) against established toxicological assessment criteria compliant with ISO10993-10.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. There is no "training set" for this type of medical device testing. Training sets are used in machine learning and AI development.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device