Search Results

The Serim® D-CIDE GTA 1.5% Test Strip is a chemical indicator for use in determining whether the concentration of glutaraldehyde, the active ingredient in Rapicide HLD and Sterilant (Medivators Reprocessing Systems), is above or at/below the minimum effective concentration (MEC) of 1.5% GTA established for this solution.

The device is a qualitative, single use, reagent test strip made up of a 0.20 inch square indicator pad that has been chemically treated to detect GTA. The pad is affixed to one end of a 3.25 inch by 0.20 inch white opaque polystyrene strip.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Serim® D-CIDE GTA 1.5% Test Strip, based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in the provided document. The document mentions "split samples blind studies" but does not give a numeric count of samples.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. There's no mention of country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:

• This information is not provided in the document. The method of establishing ground truth relies on the chemical reaction and visual color change of the test strip, and comparison to a predicate device, rather than expert interpretation of complex data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• This information is not provided as the ground truth appears to be based on the chemical reaction and visual color change, not on subjective assessment that would require adjudication. The study involved "blind studies" and comparison to a predicate device.

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:

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a chemical indicator, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Its performance is based on a chemical reaction producing a visual color change, not on human interpretation that could be augmented by AI.

6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done:

• Yes, in essence, a standalone performance was done. The device itself, a chemical test strip, operates independently to produce a visual result based on the glutaraldehyde concentration. The "performance" described is the inherent function of the test strip (a chemical reaction) and its visual output, without a human "in the loop" for interpretation beyond simply observing the color change.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth is established by the chemical concentration of glutaraldehyde in the solutions being tested. The device is designed to visually indicate whether this concentration is above or at/below the MEC of 1.5%, based on a specific chemical reaction. The validation relies on comparing this visual indication against the known concentration of glutaraldehyde and against the performance of a predicate device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• This information is not provided in the document. The device is a chemical indicator, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set in the typical sense.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

• This information is not applicable/provided. As mentioned, the device is a chemical indicator. Its development and validation likely involved chemical formulations and testing to ensure the desired color change reaction at specific glutaraldehyde concentrations, rather than a "training set" with established ground truth as understood in AI/machine learning contexts.

Ask a specific question about this device

CIDEX* OPA Solution Test Strips are semi-quantitative chemical indicators used to determine whether the concentration of active ingredient in CIDEX* OPA Solution is above or below the minimum effective concentration of 0.3% OPA. CIDEX* OPA Solution Test Strips cannot be used to validate the sterilization or disinfection process.

The CIDEX® OPA Solution Test Strips consist of a 0.2-inch reagent-containing pad attached to one end of a 0.2 x 3.25-inch polystyrene handle. The indicator pad contains a color-forming reagent. It also contains an inhibiting compound that prevents visible reaction when the OPA concentration is at or below the MEC. When the OPA level is in sufficient excess of the MEC, the surplus reacts with the color-forming reagent. The sample is placed in a 12 x 75-mm glass test tube. The indicator pad is immersed in the sample for 30 seconds, removed and allowed to react for an additional two and one-half minutes at which time it is compared to a color standard. If the color of the entire pad is equal to or darker than the color standard, the concentration of ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) in CIDEX® OPA Solution is above the minimum effective concentration (MEC). If any part of the pad is lighter than the color standard, the CIDEX® OPA Solution should not be used.

The provided document describes the acceptance criteria and the study conducted for CIDEX® OPA Solution Test Strips.

Here's the breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set Sample Size: A total of 324 results were obtained with each standard (0.30% OPA, 0.40% OPA, and 0.45% OPA). This implies the test set comprised multiple samples (standards) evaluated multiple times. The document states "324 results were obtained with each standard," suggesting 324 individual tests for each OPA concentration.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. The study was conducted as "blind studies" using "CIDEX® OPA Solution standards." This suggests a controlled laboratory setting rather than data derived from real-world clinical use. The study is prospective as it involves controlled testing of the device.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications

• Number of Readers: Eight individuals.
• Qualifications: "Three of the readers were inexperienced in laboratory techniques." The qualifications of the other five readers are not specified.

4. Adjudication Method

• The document implies that each of the eight individuals independently read the test strips, and their individual results were collected. It does not describe an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 (where multiple experts independently interpret and then a tie-breaker or consensus is used). The results are presented as aggregated counts (e.g., "324 results were FAIL").

5. MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not done. This device is a chemical indicator test strip, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

6. Standalone Performance

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The study evaluated the performance of the CIDEX® OPA Solution Test Strips (the device itself) in detecting OPA concentrations in solution. There is no human-in-the-loop component beyond the visual interpretation of the color change on the strip, which is an inherent part of the device's function.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Known Concentration Standards: The ground truth was established using "CIDEX® OPA Solution standards" with known concentrations of OPA (0.30%, 0.40%, and 0.45%). This is an objective ground truth based on chemically prepared solutions.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document describes performance testing for regulatory submission, not a machine learning model. Therefore, there is no explicit training set sample size as typically understood in AI/ML contexts. The description focuses solely on the validation/test phase of the device.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

• As concluded in point 8, there is no explicit training set for this device in the context of AI/ML. The device's mechanism is based on chemical reactions, and its design and formulation would have been developed through R&D, likely using internal experiments and optimization, rather than a formal "training set" with established ground truth as in supervised learning.

Ask a specific question about this device