Search Results

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device is intended to produce a capillary blood sample for testing utilizing small amounts of blood.

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device is a sterile, single-use, disposable lancing device intended to be used by non-professional users 18 years and older and healthcare professionals. It is designed for capillary blood sampling from the fingertip of adults and children 1 year and older or, if the patient is a child under 1 year, from the heel. The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device is a needle used for capillary blood sampling for use in diagnostic testing. The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus lancing device contains a sharps injury prevention feature where the lancet is retracted and concealed before and after use. Once the lancet is used, it is rendered inoperative. The device is designed for single use only. It has a 23 Gauge needle with 3 depth levels by twisting cap: 1.3 mm, 1.8 mm, 2.3 mm. It is spring-driven and loading/priming is not required. Press release button to activate lancet mechanism.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Plus Lancing Device". It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate and reference devices rather than presenting specific acceptance criteria and a detailed study proving the device meets them in the context of performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement, which are typical for AI/ML devices.

However, based on the information provided, I can extract the non-clinical testing performed and infer the acceptance criteria and details about the study.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria or performance metrics (like accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) for comparison within a table, as one would expect for an AI/ML device. Instead, it describes "nonclinical bench testing" and "design verification and validation testing" to ensure risk management and mechanical function. The "reported device performance" is broadly stated as "performs as well or better than the legally marketed predicate device and legally marketed reference devices."

However, we can infer acceptance criteria related to safety and functionality from the types of testing mentioned and the characteristics of the device.

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 primarily describes non-clinical bench testing. It does not provide details on a "test set" in the context of clinical data for performance metrics. For the "nonclinical bench testing," the sample size of devices tested is not specified. The data provenance is also not specified, but it would typically be internal testing conducted by the manufacturer. Since it's bench testing, concepts of retrospective or prospective data usually don't apply in the same way as 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)

This section is not applicable as the document describes a physical medical device (lancing device) and its mechanical and safety performance, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set. There is no mention of experts or ground truth in this context.

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

This section is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of data, often by multiple readers, which is not the case here.

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

This section is not applicable. The device is a "lancing device," a physical tool for blood sampling. It does not involve AI or software for diagnostic interpretation, and therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is entirely outside the scope of this device.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a lancing device and does not involve any algorithm or software with standalone performance.

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

This section is not applicable. For a lancing device, the "ground truth" for its performance would be its physical properties, sterility, mechanical reliability, and safety features, which are evaluated through engineering tests and quality control, not clinical "ground truth" like pathology or outcomes data in the sense of diagnostic accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set

This section is not applicable. The device is not an AI/ML product and does not have a "training set."

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

This section is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno lancing device is intended to produce a capillary blood sample for testing utilizing small amounts of blood.

The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno lancing device is a sterile, single-use, disposable lancing device intended to be used by non-professional users 18 years and older and healthcare professionals. It is designed for capillary blood sampling from the fingertip of adults and children 1 year and older or, if the patient is a child under 1 year, from the heel.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) premarket notification for the Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno Lancing Device. It does not describe a study with acceptance criteria in the manner typically found in clinical trials or AI/software validation studies. Instead, it details a "non-clinical bench testing" approach to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Here's an analysis based on your request, highlighting what is and isn't available in the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria alongside reported device performance for specific metrics. Instead, it refers to "design verification and validation testing" performed per "applicable FDA Guidance documents (Sharps Injury Prevention Features) and special controls (878.4850)." The conclusion states the device "performs as well or better than the legally marketed predicate device and legally marketed reference devices."

The closest approximation to "device performance" mentioned is:

• The Accu-Chek Safe-T-Pro Uno lancing device is designed for a single use only and has a sharps injury prevention feature where the lancet is retracted and concealed before and after use, and is rendered inoperative after use.
• It uses a 28 Gauge needle with a 1.5 mm depth and is spring-driven.
• Loading/priming is not required; activation is via a press release button.

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 does not specify a "sample size used for the test set" or "data provenance" in terms of subject populations or data collection methods (retrospective/prospective). This is because the described testing is "non-clinical bench testing," meaning it was likely conducted in a laboratory setting on the device itself, rather than on human subjects or clinical 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)

This is not applicable as no "ground truth" established by experts for a test set is mentioned. The testing involves mechanical and design verification, not expert evaluation of results from human or image data.

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

Not applicable. No adjudication method is mentioned as there's no expert review of outcomes.

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. A MRMC comparative effectiveness study is relevant for AI or diagnostic imaging devices evaluating human performance. This document is for a medical device (lancing device) and does not involve AI or human readers.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI or algorithm-based device.

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

Not applicable in the conventional sense of clinical ground truth. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical bench testing would be engineering specifications, regulatory standards (like ISO or FDA special controls for sharps injury prevention), and the performance characteristics of the legally marketed predicate and reference devices.

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. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

Summary of what is present:

• Type of Study: Non-clinical bench testing (design verification and validation testing).
• Purpose: To demonstrate the mechanical functions, safety (sharps injury prevention), and performance are suitable for use and are substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate and reference devices.
• Applicable Standards: FDA Guidance documents (Sharps Injury Prevention Features) and special controls (878.4850).
• Conclusion: The device is "safe and effective for its intended use, and performs as well or better than the legally marketed predicate device and legally marketed reference devices."
• Clinical Testing: "Not applicable; risk analysis confirmed that all identified risks were addressed and mitigated appropriately."

Ask a specific question about this device