This clinical trial consisted of lay user study and method comparison study. Method comparison study: evaluate the clinical performance by comparing the results of new device and FDA cleared device (the comparator) tested on the same sample by professionals. Lay user study: evaluate the usability of by comparing the results of new device on the same sample tested by professionals and lay user, and by lay users complete the questionnaire.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
502
First Teaching hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Tianjin, China
Comparison results
Compare the test results conducted by professionals using investigational device and the comparator, and the positive percent agreement (PPA=100%), negative percent agreement (NPA=100%) and overall percent agreement (OPA=100%) were calculated.
Time frame: 30minute
Evaluate the usability and user comprehension of investigational device
The accuracy rate of the critical task is 100%. The Overall Percent Agreement for investigational device is 100% when conducted by a lay user. The accuracy rate of the each questions in the Knowledge assessment is 100%, and 100% of the Ease of operation assessment chose normal, easy, or very easy.
Time frame: 30minute
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.