Clinical Evaluation of DRX Plus 3543 and DRX Plus 3543C Digital Detectors
1 other identifier
interventional
27
1 country
1
Brief Summary
The purpose of this clinical study is to evaluate the imaging performance of the DRX Plus 3543 and DRX Plus 3543C Detectors (flat panel digital imaging devices) as compared to the currently marketed Carestream DRX-1 Detector. The results of this study will be included in a Traditional 510(k) FDA Submission to obtain clearance to market the new detectors in the US. The study was designed in accordance with the FDA Guidance titled "Guidance for the Submission of 510(k)'s for Solid State X-ray Imaging Devices", issued on August 6, 1999.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable healthy
Started Jan 2015
Shorter than P25 for not_applicable healthy
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
January 1, 2015
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
January 1, 2015
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
January 2, 2015
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
January 14, 2015
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
March 1, 2015
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
April 18, 2016
CompletedApril 18, 2016
June 1, 2015
Same day
January 2, 2015
May 1, 2015
April 15, 2016
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Radlex Scale for Diagnostic Capability Ratings
1-Non-diagnostic Unacceptable for diagnostic purposes. Little or no clinically usable diagnostic information (e.g., gross underexposure, system failure or extensive motion artifact). Almost all such imaging should be repeated. 2-Limited Acceptable, with some technical defect (motion artifact, body habitus/poor x-ray penetration, or patient positioning may limit visualization of some body-regions but still adequate for diagnostic purposes). Not as much diagnostic information as is typical for an examination of this type, but likely sufficient. 3-Diagnostic Image quality that would be expected routinely when imaging cooperative patients. 4-Exemplary Good, most adequate for diagnostic purposes. Image quality that can serve as an example that should be emulated.
9 weeks after last x-ray capture
Secondary Outcomes (1)
Pair Preference Rating
9 weeks after last x-ray capture
Study Arms (3)
Predicate & Invest.-GOS
EXPERIMENTALRadiation - Each subject will receive one x-ray using the predicate detector and one x-ray using the GOS investigational detector.
Predicate & Invest.-CsI
EXPERIMENTALRadiation - Each subject will receive one x-ray using the predicate detector and one x-ray using the CsI investigational detector.
Predicate & Invest.-Cadavers GOS & CsI
EXPERIMENTALRadiation - Multiple exams (head, chest, legs, etc) were made on the cadavers. Each exam area received one x-ray using the predicate detector and two x-rays using the both the GoS and the CsI investigational detectors.
Interventions
Live subjects will receive two x-rays, one with predicate detector and one using the GOS or CsI investigational detector. Multiple exams (head, chest, legs, etc) were made on the cadavers. Each exam area received one x-ray using the predicate detector and two x-rays using both the GoS and the CsI investigational detectors.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- X-ray images of nearly identical positioning and exposure
- No visible image artifacts
- Subject 21years or older
- Subject has provided informed consent
- Subject is in good general health
- Subject is able to stand for two (2) x-rays
You may not qualify if:
- Images that are not clinically acceptable for clinical radiographic reading as determined by the Principal Investigator.
- Subject is pregnant or suspicious of being pregnant
- Not able or willing to provide Informed Consent, or consent is withdrawn
- Not able to collect all required case information
- Subject has a history of high radiation exposure:
- Has undergone radiation therapy
- Has had two (2) or more CT scans within the past year
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York, 14642-8648, United States
MeSH Terms
Interventions
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Susan Pate, RN, MS, RAC
- Organization
- Carestream Health, Inc.
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Susan Hobbs, MD
University of Rochester
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Steven Don, MD
St. Louis Children's Hospital
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- No
- Restrictive Agreement
- No
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- DOUBLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Purpose
- DIAGNOSTIC
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- INDUSTRY
- Responsible Party
- SPONSOR
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
January 2, 2015
First Posted
January 14, 2015
Study Start
January 1, 2015
Primary Completion
January 1, 2015
Study Completion
March 1, 2015
Last Updated
April 18, 2016
Results First Posted
April 18, 2016
Record last verified: 2015-06
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will not share