Search Results

R-C1 TENS and EMS Stimulator

TENS: This mode is designed to be used for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the shoulder, waist, back, neck, upper extremities (arm), and lower extremities (leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household work activities.

EMS: This mode is designed to be used for stimulate healthy muscles in order to improve and facilitate muscle performance.

R-E1 EMS Stimulator

This device is designed to be used for stimulate healthy muscles in order to improve and facilitate muscle performance.

R-T1 TENS Stimulator

This device is designed to be used for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the shoulder, waist, back, neck, upper extremities (arm), and lower extremities (leg) due to strain from exercise or normal household work activities.

The RW Series A Electrical Stimulators, which includes models R-C1 TENS and EMS stimulator, R-E1 EMS stimulator and R-T1 TENS stimulator, are Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator and muscle stimulator for pain relief and/or Electrical Muscle Stimulator. The stimulator sends gentle electrical current to underlying nerves and muscle group via electrodes applied on the skin. The parameters of units are controlled by the press buttons. Its intensity level is adjustable according to the needs of patients.

The device unit of R-C1 was portable device, battery powered (6.0V DC) multi-function device offering both Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator(TENS) and Powered Muscle Stimulator (EMS) qualities in one device.

The electrode size is 50*50mm, the manufacturer is Top-Rank Health care Equipment Co., Ltd. The electrode is OTC use and cleared with 510(K), the cleared number is K132588. It has been evaluated and tested according to ISO 10993-1/-5 and -10 standards.

The three models of R-C1, R-E1 and R-T1 have the same appearance, structure, display, electrical principle and CDF, the main differences are software and color. The R-C1 have TENS mode (18 programs), EMS mode (15 programs). The R-E1 only have EMS mode (15 programs) and R-T1 only have TENS mode (18 programs). The R-C1 was combination the function of R-E1 and R-T1.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device (Electrical Stimulator - Model R-C1 TENS and EMS stimulator, Model R-E1 EMS stimulator, Model R-T1 TENS Stimulator). It describes the device, its intended use, comparison to predicate devices, and non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information, based on the provided text:

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

The document provides a table outlining compliance with recognized consensus standards for safety and performance (page 6). This effectively acts as the acceptance criteria for the non-clinical tests.

The document also provides a detailed comparison table (pages 8-9) with the predicate devices for various technical characteristics. For each characteristic, the comparison indicates "Same," "Different but does not adversely impact safety and effectiveness," or similar justifications, implying that these characteristics meet the acceptance criteria established by the predicate devices or are otherwise deemed safe and effective. Specific numerical values are provided for many parameters, such as maximum output voltage, maximum output current, pulse width range, and frequency.

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 explicitly states: "No clinical test data was used to support the decision of substantial equivalence." (page 6). The evaluation was based solely on non-clinical (laboratory) testing. Therefore, there is no sample size for an effectiveness test set, nor is there data provenance in the context of clinical studies.

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)

Since no clinical studies were performed and the substantial equivalence determination was based on non-clinical, laboratory testing and comparison to predicate devices, this information is not applicable. The "ground truth" for the device's acceptable performance was established by demonstrating compliance with recognized safety and performance standards (e.g., IEC standards) and showing equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices through technical specifications and testing.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring expert adjudication was used.

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. The device is an electrical stimulator, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers. No MRMC study was performed.

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

Not applicable. The device is an electrical stimulator, not an algorithm. However, the non-clinical tests (e.g., electrical safety, performance, software validation) represent an evaluation of the device's standalone performance against established engineering and safety standards.

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

For this device, the "ground truth" for demonstrating safety and effectiveness was based on:

• Compliance with recognized international consensus standards: Such as IEC 60601 series, ISO 14971, and IEC 62304. These standards define the acceptable performance and safety characteristics for medical electrical equipment.
• Comparison to legally marketed predicate devices: The predicate devices (MT9001, LT3060; K130802) serve as the established "ground truth" for a device of this type being safe and effective for its indicated use. The extensive comparison table (pages 8-9) outlines how the new device's technical specifications either match or differ in ways that do not adversely impact safety and effectiveness compared to these predicates.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. The device is an electrical stimulator that performs physical functions, not a machine learning model 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 this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device