Search Results

The EASY CHECK Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems is intended for use in the quantitative measurement of glucose in fresh capillary whole blood from the finger and from the following alternative sites: the palm and the forearm. It is intended for use by healthcare professionals and people with diabetes mellitus at home and healthcare facilities as an aid in monitoring the effectiveness of diabetes control program. It is not intended for the diagnosis of or screening for diabetes mellitus, and is not intended for use on neonates.

The EASY CHECK Blood Glucose Monitoring System is designed to provide an easy, accurate method for determining capillary blood glucose values. This analysis is based on amperometric technology using glucose oxidase that is specific for the blood glucose measurement. When the blood sample is applied to the test strip, electrons are formed by the reaction between glucose oxidase and blood glucose. The electrical current is measured by the meter and correlates with the concentration of glucose in the blood sample.

The EASY CHECK Blood Glucose Monitoring System consists of the Meter, Test strips with instructions, Lancing device with instructions, Lancets, Code card, 3-Volt Lithium Coin Battery, Users Guide, Log Book, Carrying case and EASY CHECK Control Solutions (level 1 and level 2)

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the EASY CHECK Blood Glucose Monitoring System:

This document primarily serves as a 510(k) summary for the FDA, focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than detailing specific acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study results in the format requested. While it mentions "clinical testing" for accuracy and comparability, the actual acceptance criteria along with their corresponding performance results are not explicitly laid out in a table in the provided text.

However, based on the general information provided for a blood glucose monitoring system, we can infer some aspects of what would likely constitute acceptance criteria and how performance was evaluated.

Response:

Based on the provided text, the report does not explicitly list a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding device performance results in the requested format. The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than a detailed breakdown of performance against predefined acceptance criteria.

However, it does state that "Sensitivity, precision, linearity and other tests were used to demonstrate the performance and reliability of EASY CHECK Blood Glucose Monitoring System." It also mentions "Consumer (field) testing was done to prove that the EASY CHECK Blood Glucose Monitoring System is easy to use by lay people and also that test results are accurate and comparable to a laboratory reference method and to the predicate device."

Without specific numerical targets for "sensitivity, precision, and linearity" and their achieved values, a direct table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance cannot be generated.

Given the context of a blood glucose meter, typical acceptance criteria would be based on ISO 15197 (or a similar standard in place at the time of submission) which outlines accuracy requirements. For example, for glucose concentrations < 75 mg/dL, 95% of results should be within ±15 mg/dL of the reference, and for glucose concentrations ≥ 75 mg/dL, 95% of results should be within ±20% of the reference. The document implies these types of tests were performed and met the necessary standards for clearance by stating, "Detailed testing has confirmed that the EASY CHECK Blood Glucose Monitoring System is substantially equivalent to the predicate device and that the differences do not bring up any new safety or effectiveness concerns."

Let's address the other points based on the available information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

As mentioned above, this table is not explicitly provided in the document. The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device (ASCENSIA ELITE DIABETES CARE SYSTEM) rather than presenting a performance report against specific numerical acceptance criteria.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size: The sample size for the clinical testing (consumer field testing) is not specified in the provided text.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. The testing appears to be prospective as it involves "consumer (field) testing" to prove usability and accuracy, implying newly collected data.

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)

• The document states that "test results are accurate and comparable to a laboratory reference method." This implies that the ground truth was established by a laboratory reference method, which would be operated by trained laboratory personnel.
• The number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., number of years of experience) are not specified.

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

• The document does not describe any adjudication method. It refers to comparison against a "laboratory reference method," which typically serves as the gold standard, implying no adjudication among multiple human readers of the device results was necessary, as the comparison was to an established reference.

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 Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) study was done for AI assistance. This device is a standalone blood glucose monitoring system and does not involve AI assistance for human readers or interpretation of medical images. It's a direct measurement device.

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

• Yes, in spirit. The "EASY CHECK Blood Glucose Monitoring System" itself is a standalone device. Its performance, specifically its "accuracy" when compared to a laboratory reference method, is a measure of its standalone algorithmic (or electrochemical) performance in converting a blood sample to a glucose value. While it's used by "lay people" at home, the core measurement and result generation is an automated process without human interpretation in the loop other than applying the sample and reading the digital display.

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

• The ground truth used was a "laboratory reference method". For blood glucose meters, this typically refers to a highly accurate laboratory analyzer (e.g., a YSI analyzer) that uses an enzymatic or hexokinase method, considered the clinical gold standard.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The document does not provide information regarding a separate "training set" or its sample size. This type of detail is usually more common for machine learning (AI) devices, which this blood glucose meter is not. For traditional medical devices like this, development and verification would involve internal testing, characterization, and then validation against a reference method.

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

• As no "training set" is mentioned in the context of an AI/ML algorithm, this question is not applicable in the sense of establishing ground truth for machine learning. The device's underlying technology (amperometry using glucose oxidase) relies on well-established chemical principles, not machine learning trained on data sets.

Ask a specific question about this device