Search Results

Sickle-Chex Solubility Kit is a qualitative solubility test kit for tasting the presence of sickling hemoglobins in human blood or sickle cell control materlal.

Sickle-Chex Solubility Kit consists of:

• Sickle-Chex Solubility Buffer; two LDPE bottles, each illied ville 100mL of a A. 2.3M potassium phosphate buffer solution containing Saponin.
• Sickle-Chex Reagent Powder; two glass vials, each filled with 4 grams of B. Sodium Hydrosulfite.
  The testing principles of the kit is based on NCCLS, H10-F.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Sickle-Chex Solubility Kit, with an emphasis on the acceptance criteria and supporting study details.

Important Note: The provided document is a 510(k) summary, which is a regulatory document filed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It typically summarizes studies and conclusions without going into granular detail on study designs, statistical methodologies, or all acceptance criteria. Therefore, some specific details requested (like exact sample sizes for test/training sets, blinding protocols, or multi-reader studies) are not explicitly stated in this document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The 510(k) summary for the Sickle-Chex Solubility Kit primarily focuses on demonstrating equivalence to a predicate device (Dade® Sickle-Sol™ Test) and confirming the product's stability and reliability. The acceptance criteria, while not explicitly listed as quantitative metrics in a table, can be inferred from the "Conclusions Drawn from the Tests."

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated in the 510(k) summary. The document mentions "Off-site studies" and "in house studies," but does not provide the number of samples or cases used in these evaluations.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated. Given that Streck Laboratories is located in La Vista, NE (USA) and the regulatory body is the FDA (USA), it is highly probable the data was collected within the USA.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not explicitly stated. "Off-site studies" could be either, but often includes prospective testing in a laboratory setting. "In house studies" would also typically be prospective testing conducted by the manufacturer.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• Number of Experts: Not mentioned. This type of qualitative solubility test typically relies on direct chemical reaction observation, and the "ground truth" for evaluating the kit's performance would likely be established by comparing its qualitative results against established laboratory methods or reference materials.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not mentioned.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable or not mentioned. For a chemical solubility test, the "adjudication method" involving human experts reading results is usually not relevant in the same way it would be for image-based diagnostics. The ground truth for such a test is typically based on the chemical principle itself, or comparison to established reference methods/materials.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This type of study is primarily relevant for diagnostic imaging devices where human readers interpret results, and the AI's impact on their performance is being evaluated. This device is a qualitative chemical test kit.
• Effect Size of AI Improvement: Not applicable, as no MRMC study was conducted and this is not an AI-assisted device.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Standalone Performance Study: Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was implicitly done. The "Off-site studies" that verified the performance against competitor kits, and the "in house" stability studies, represent the device's performance characteristics independent of human interpretation beyond recording the qualitative reaction. The device itself is the "algorithm" in this context, producing a qualitative result.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth for this type of device would typically be:
  • Reference Method Comparison: Comparing the results of the Sickle-Chex kit to a gold-standard or well-established method for detecting sickling hemoglobins (e.g., electrophoresis, or another validated solubility test).
  • Known Samples: Testing with control materials or patient samples with known sickle cell status (e.g., confirmed by genetic testing or other definitive methods).
  • Clinical Outcomes Data: Unlikely to be the primary ground truth for a qualitative screening test.
  • Expert Consensus: Unlikely to be the primary ground truth for a chemical reaction test.

The summary mentions "sickle cell control material" and "human blood," suggesting a combination of known samples and potentially clinical samples verified by other means.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable / not mentioned. This device is a chemical reagent kit, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a distinct "training set" in the computational sense. Its performance is based on its chemical formulation and reaction properties.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no "training set" or establishment of ground truth for such a set in the context of machine learning. The chemical properties and formulation are developed and refined through R&D and quality control, not via a machine learning training process.

Ask a specific question about this device

Sickle-Chex is intended to be used as a sickle cell control in testing for the presence of hemoglobin S in solubility tests and hemoglobin electrophoresis.

Sickle-Chex consists of Control materials for verifying performance of sickle cell hemoglobin testing systems. The controls contain human red blood cells and preservative suspension media packaged in a polyethylene dropper bottle with dispensing tip. Product fill is 2.5 ml per vial.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Sickle-Chex 510(k) notification, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

Disclaimer: This device is a quality control material, not a diagnostic device for direct patient use. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" described are about the performance of the control material itself in verifying diagnostic tests, rather than its diagnostic accuracy on patient samples. Many of the questions provided in the prompt are more applicable to diagnostic devices, and the information in the 510(k) for a control material will naturally be different.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Proving Acceptance Criteria:

The provided text does not contain a detailed study section with explicit methodology, results, or statistical analysis to "prove" the device meets acceptance criteria in the way a diagnostic device would.

Instead, for a quality control material like Sickle-Chex, the "proof" primarily relies on:

• Manufacturing and Characterization: The control material is manufactured to contain human red blood cells with specific hemoglobin characteristics (presence of Hb S in the positive control, absence in the negative control).
• Intended Use Statements: The submission defines the intended use, which inherently outlines the expected performance: "The Positive Control will produce a positive test..." and "The Negative Control contains normal human red blood cells that will produce a negative test...". This is a statement of what the product is designed to do and what has been verified during its development.
• Substantial Equivalence: The FDA's 510(k) clearance is based on a determination of substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This means that the FDA found the Sickle-Chex to be as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, likely by demonstrating similar performance characteristics through internal testing and possibly comparison to the predicate. The document refers to "Predicate product package insert and assay sheet," suggesting that the performance of Sickle-Chex was benchmarked against an existing similar product.

Without access to the full 510(k) submission, specific details of laboratory characterization and comparison to the predicate device are not available in the provided text.

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 for Test Set: Not specified in the provided text. For a control material, the "test set" would likely refer to a series of internal characterization tests and comparisons to a predicate device.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It can be inferred that any testing would have been conducted by Streck Laboratories, Inc. (USA) as part of their manufacturing and regulatory submission process.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not specified.

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 concept of "experts establishing ground truth" is generally not applicable to the characterization of a quality control material. The "ground truth" for Sickle-Chex is inherent in its design and manufacturing:

• The Positive Control is designed to contain sickling hemoglobin (Hb S).
• The Negative Control is designed to contain normal hemoglobin.
  The presence or absence of Hb S would be determined through standard laboratory methods (e.g., electrophoresis, high-performance liquid chromatography, or other definitive assays) during the manufacturing and quality control process, not by expert consensus in the same way a diagnostic image might be interpreted.

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

Not applicable/not specified. Adjudication methods are typically used for interpreting subjective data (like imaging) from multiple human readers. For the characterization of a chemical/biological control, objective laboratory measurements are used, not human reader adjudication.

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. Sickle-Chex is a quality control material, not an AI diagnostic device. An MRMC study would not be performed for this product.

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

Not applicable. Sickle-Chex is a physical control material, not an algorithm or AI.

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

The "ground truth" for the Sickle-Chex controls is their inherent biochemical composition.

• The Positive Control contains human red blood cells with hemoglobin S. This is confirmed through definitive laboratory assays during its production.
• The Negative Control contains human red blood cells with normal hemoglobin. This is also confirmed through definitive laboratory assays.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. As above, this is not an AI/machine learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device