Search Results

The WTF Secura Syringe (with needle) is used for aspiration of fluids from vials and ampoules and a variety of fluid injections below the surface of the skin.

The WTF Secura Syringe (with needle) has a manually attached WTF Secura Retracting Needle. The WTF Secura Syringe (with needle) contains an inner mechanism used to allow the WTF Secura Retracting Needle to be retracted inside the plunger rod of the syringe when operator's thumb force released. After activation the needle is fully contained inside the syringe guarding against accidental needle sticks during normal handling and disposal of the used needle/syringe combination.

The WTF Secura Safety Syringe (with needle) is a sterile, single use, hypodermic syringe with a 6% Luer taper tip and an integrated Sharps Injury Prevention Feature. The syringe is provided in the following syringe sizes: 1ml, 2.5ml, 3m1, 5ml, and 10ml. and needle sizes: 21-30G. All sizes will be available with a Luer Lock tip and may be packaged as a syringe only, or syringe and needle combination. The syringe assembly consists of a lubricated polypropylene barrel with a graduated scale, a isoamyl stopper, a polypropylene plunger rod and a polypropylene sharps injury prevention feature. The sharps injury prevention feature consists of needle retracting performance before or after use, allowing for secure encapsulation of the needle point. The polypropylene syringe barrel incorporates a male 6% (Luer) connector, and is connectable to a compatible female 6% (Luer) connector. The needle assembly consists of indicidual lubricated retracting stainless steel needle and individual safety syringe.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on the acceptance criteria and study information for the WTF Secura Safety Syringe (with needle):

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance:

Study Details:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Size: 1000 devices.
   • Data Provenance: The study was conducted by Beijing WanTeFu Medical Apparatus Co., Ltd. in China ("simulated clinical study" according to "chapter 10 of 'Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff-- Medical Devices with Sharps Injury Prevention Features on Aug.9. 2005'"). The study appears to be prospective in nature, as it describes an evaluation based on testing new devices.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for the "simulated clinical study." It simply states the device "had been evaluated by simulated clinical study." The nature of the evaluation (e.g., whether it involved expert assessment of each device or simply functional testing) is not detailed.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The document does not specify any adjudication method for the test set. Given the simulated nature, it's likely a pass/fail assessment based on device functionality rather than a consensus among multiple observers.

4. 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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a medical apparatus (syringe), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so such a study would not be applicable. The document discusses comparing the device to a predicate device (BD Integra Syringe) based on general performance characteristics and ease of use, but this is not an MRMC study related to AI.

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

   • No, a standalone algorithm-only performance study was not done. As mentioned, this is a physical medical device (syringe), not an algorithm or AI system. The "simulated clinical study" evaluates the mechanical sharps injury prevention feature.

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

   • The ground truth for the "simulated clinical study" was based on the functional success (or failure) of the sharps injury prevention feature. The acceptance criterion for this feature was "one failure among 1000 devices tested," indicating a direct measurement of the device's mechanical performance against a predefined safety standard. Other product performance tests (biological, chemical, physical) likely used laboratory-based measurements and standard testing protocols to determine compliance with specified limits.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not mention a training set. This is expected as the device is a physical medical apparatus, not an AI or machine learning model that requires training data.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable, as there is no mention of a training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device