Search Results

Proov test is intended for the detection of pregnanediol glucuronide (PdG, the major urine metabolite of progesterone) in urine and can be used as an aid for confirmation of ovulation.

The Proov Test is intended for measuring pregnanediol glucuronide (PdG) in first morning urine during the luteal phase of the monthly female reproductive cvcle. The Proov Test is a disposable lateral flow test strip, consisting of a test area and control area. The urine sample is applied to the strip by dipping. The sample moves by lateral flow into the test area, and then the control area. The test area has PdG-specific reagents impregnated on it to detect the present of PdG in the urine. The control area has antibodies impregnated to be used as internal control for proper assay function. The test strip is intended for use outside the body (in vitro diagnostic use) and provides qualitative results with a single red line indicating a positive result for PdG and two red lines indicating a negative result for PdG in urine. Women can use Proov Test at multiple times during their menstrual cycle to confirm ovulation.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the U.S. FDA for the Proov Test, a device intended for the detection of pregnanediol glucuronide (PdG) in urine as an aid for confirmation of ovulation. The document details the analytical and clinical studies conducted to demonstrate the device's performance characteristics.

Here’s a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly present a formal "acceptance criteria" table with pre-defined performance thresholds alongside the results. However, the performance studies implicitly define the expected outcomes for the device to be considered acceptable. I will infer the acceptance criteria from the context of "good performance" for this type of diagnostic test.

• 0 ug/mL (100% below cutoff): 0 positive / 90 negative (100% correctly negative)
• 2.5 ug/mL (50% below cutoff): 0 positive / 90 negative (100% correctly negative)
• 3.75 ug/mL (25% below cutoff): 0 positive / 90 negative (100% correctly negative)
• 5 ug/mL (Cut-Off): 41 positive / 49 negative (Mix of results as expected at cutoff)
• 6.25 ug/mL (25% above cutoff): 90 positive / 0 negative (100% correctly positive)
• 7.5 ug/mL (50% above cutoff): 90 positive / 0 negative (100% correctly positive)
  Conclusion: Cut-off value of 5 ug/mL is verified. |
  | Detection Limit | Clearly defined and consistently detected. | 5 ug/mL PdG (verified by precision study above) |
  | Interference/Cross Reactivity | No significant interference from common substances at physiological/pathological concentrations. | No interference observed from 20 tested substances (e.g., LH, HCG, Progesterone, glucose, acetaminophen, etc.) at specified concentrations. |
  | Effect of Urine Specific Gravity & pH | Consistent results across a range of normal urine specific gravity and pH values. | All positive samples above cutoff remained positive, and all negative samples remained negative across pH 4.25-9 and specific gravity 1.000-1.025. |
  | Hook Effect | No hook effect observed at high analyte concentrations. | No hook effect observed up to 1 mg/mL PdG. |
  | Comparison to Reference Method (Clinical Correlation) | High concordance with a validated reference method (EIA procedure). Minor discordances, particularly near the cutoff, are expected. | Comparison Study (94 urine samples):
• Viewer A: 90.4% concordance (85/94 matched ELISA classification)
• Viewer B: 92.6% concordance (87/94 matched ELISA classification)
• Viewer C: 95.7% concordance (90/94 matched ELISA classification)
  Discordant results primarily near the ELISA cutoff (e.g., ELISA 4.4 ug/mL read positive by Viewer A, ELISA 5.2 ug/mL read negative by Viewers B & C). |
  | Lay User Performance (Ability to read and interpret) | High percentage of lay users correctly identify positive/negative results and find instructions easy to understand. | Lay User Study (101 lay persons; 121 total samples):
• 100% correct interpretation for all tested concentrations (1.25, 2.5, 3.75 ug/mL negative; 6.25, 7.5, 8.75 ug/mL positive). (Actual number of correct interpretations: 121 of 121 samples).
• 92% of lay users indicated instructions were "easy" or "very easy". |

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Test Set (Analytical & Clinical):
  • Precision Studies: 90 replicates per PdG concentration (total 540 replicates in the table).
  • Interference/Cross Reactivity: Samples (negative male urine and spiked male urine) tested with three batches of the device for each of the 20 substances. Specific number of samples not explicitly stated beyond "samples."
  • Specific Gravity & pH: "Negative urine samples" and "urine spiked with PdG 25% above cut-off levels" tested with three batches of the device. Specific number of samples not explicitly stated.
  • Hook Effect: "Negative urine samples were spiked with PdG at concentrations of ranging from 50 ug/ml to 1 mg/ml." Tested with three lots. Specific number of samples not explicitly stated.
  • Comparison Studies: 94 urine samples collected from "apparently healthy female individuals."
  • Lay User Study: 101 lay persons; 121 blind-labeled samples (each participant received 1 or 2 samples).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The studies appear to be prospective in nature, as they involve testing samples (either prepared or collected) with the device and assessing performance.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth (Test Set)

• Analytical Ground Truth (e.g., for precision, interference): Established by the study design (known concentrations of spiked PdG, known interfering substances). No external "experts" were used to establish this ground truth in the sense of clinical interpretation.
• Comparison Study Ground Truth: A "validated PDG EIA procedure" was used as the reference method (ground truth) for the 94 urine samples. No information is provided regarding the qualifications of the personnel who performed the EIA procedure or established its "validity."
• Lay User Study Ground Truth: The ground truth for the lay user study was the known spiked concentration of PdG in the simulated urine samples (e.g., 1.25 ug/mL was negative, 6.25 ug/mL was positive).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Comparison Study: The Proov Test results were read by "three different technicians." It does not explicitly state an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, majority vote) among these technicians to arrive at a single "Proov Test result" for comparison. The table shows separate results for Viewer A, Viewer B, and Viewer C, implying individual readings were recorded and compared to the ELISA. Discordant results are listed individually for each viewer.
• Lay User Study: Lay users read their own results. The "correctness" was determined by comparison to the known spiked concentrations. No "adjudication" between lay users occurred; their individual reading accuracy was assessed.

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

• No, a formal MRMC study was not described in the typical sense of comparing human readers with AI assistance vs. without AI assistance.
• The comparison study involved three technicians reading the Proov test, and their individual results were compared to a reference method (ELISA). This is a multi-reader study for the device interpretation, but it does not evaluate the improvement of human readers using AI, as the Proov Test itself is a rapid diagnostic kit, not an AI-powered diagnostic.
• The Lay User study also involved multiple readers (the lay persons), but it focused on their ability to interpret the device without any assistance (AI or otherwise) beyond the package insert.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only)

• Not applicable. The Proov Test is a visually read lateral flow assay, not an algorithm or AI-driven device. Its performance is inherent to the chemical reactions on the strip and how it presents results for human interpretation. Therefore, there is no "algorithm only" performance to describe.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Studies: Ground truth was established by known concentrations of PdG in samples (spiked male urine or simulated urine) and the presence/absence of specific interferents.
• Comparison Study: Ground truth was established by a validated PDG EIA procedure, used as a reference method for the collected urine samples.
• Lay User Study: Ground truth was established by known spiked concentrations of PdG in prepared simulated urine samples.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is a diagnostic kit, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The device's performance is based on its chemical and biological components.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device. The "training" for the device's development would be analogous to traditional R&D and validation processes for chemical assays, where performance is optimized based on laboratory testing and analytical validation, not by training an algorithm on a dataset with established ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device