Recorded device evidence

ReDs Wearable System (K150095): indications, design and recorded evidence

The acquired K150095 file contains product-specific indications and users, design and operating principle, recorded comparison and differences, non-clinical evidence actually described, performance evidence actually described sections. Compare these dated manufacturer statements with your own indication and design before commissioning evidence work. They describe this submission; they do not prescribe your testing, validate performance independently or establish a suitable predicate.

Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.

Computed exact-code research

This decision beside its recorded product-code cohort

The 2021–2025 complete-year cohort contains 7 selected decisions under primary code DSB. 7 have valid reported receipt/decision pairs; 0 pairs are missing or invalid.

No quartiles are displayed: this complete-year cohort has fewer than 20 valid pairs.

The table shows the named decision and up to four latest exact-code research records through 2026-09-27. It can include partial-year records outside the complete-year cohort. The quartiles above use the full stated cohort, not this displayed selection.

Research recordRecorded deviceReceipt → decisionCalendar elapsed daysRecorded submission type
K150095 ↗ · this pageReDs Wearable System2015-01-16 → 2015-08-06202Traditional
K260224 ↗MySOZO Software version 6.1.0.1 (SW version 6.1.0.1)2026-01-26 → 2026-08-17203Traditional
K250634 ↗BCM2-Body Composition Monitor2025-03-03 → 2025-11-24266Traditional
K243727 ↗Re:Balans2024-12-03 → 2025-10-16317Traditional
K250922 ↗Edema Guard Monitor (EGM) CardioSet-0012025-03-27 → 2025-09-09166Traditional

Use this comparison: select a record to investigate, read its actual indications and design, and document differences. A shared code or elapsed period cannot establish its relevance to your device.

Calendar elapsed days are not active FDA review time, a promised schedule or a success probability. The selection includes only the stated recorded decisions, not all applications. Latest records can postdate the named historical decision and are contextual research, not its predicates. Shared codes, summaries and observed records do not prove equivalence, current market availability, buyer applicability or predicate suitability.

Calculation, selection and source versions

Reuse the complete-endpoint exact-primary-code, documented SE-decision cohort and its stated cutoff/window. Retain its type-7 quartiles only when at least 20 valid date pairs are present. Independently subtract the named official record’s receipt date from its decision date; missing or negative pairs remain unknown. Show up to four latest exact-code research records, excluding the named ID. Parent analysis hash, source snapshots and calculation versions are retained.

Calculation: fda-named-decision-cohort-context-1; cutoff 2026-09-27; 0 parent records excluded; units record counts; calendar elapsed days.

Source snapshots: 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002.

Read beyond the decision row

Recorded evidence and differences to investigate

The summary is manufacturer-submitted context hosted by FDA. Negative/no-study statements are preserved. Evidence themes are not binding legal requirements.

Short opening excerpts identify the source sections. Read the linked original for the full study context, negative statements, tables and limitations. Public quotations are limited to 120 words per acquired summary; the internal evidence packet retains exact section ranges for review.

Indications and users

K150095 · PDF page 5 ↗ Source 2

Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.

Compare with your product: Compare the recorded indication, population, body site and use environment with your proposed label. Record each change instead of assuming the primary code settles intended use.

Design and operating principle

K150095 · PDF page 5 ↗ Source 2

The ReDS Wearable System (“ReDS”) is a non-invasive thoracic base wave
impedance monitor that provides measurement of patient lung fluid content.

The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.

Compare with your product: Compare physical design, materials, energy, accessories and operating principle with your design. Ask which documented differences change the evidence scope.

Recorded comparison and differences

K150095 · PDF page 5 ↗ Source 2

The       ReDS Wearable System                           ’s        technological characteristics are substantially
equivalent to    those of its predicate devices.

The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.

Compare with your product: The summary’s comparison is a manufacturer statement about that submission. Investigate the actual design differences and cited records before considering any comparator or predicate.

Non-clinical evidence actually described

K150095 · PDF page 6 ↗ Source 3

Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.

Compare with your product: Treat these as documented evidence themes in this case, including any limitations or negative statements. Ask which protocols, design inputs and acceptance rationale would be justified for your product; these excerpts are not a mandatory test panel.

Performance evidence actually described

K150095 · PDF page 6 ↗ Source 3

The ReDS Wearable System was evaluated in                non-cli ni cal, preclinical,            and    clinical
testing.

The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.

Compare with your product: The source labels this section as performance data. Determine which described evidence is bench, software, biological or clinical from the actual narrative and original tables; the section label alone does not settle that distinction or prescribe your testing.

Extraction selection and limits

Select observed whole-line section headings or explicit colon-delimited inline labels on readable PDF pages, including the explicitly documented heading-spacing variants in this parser version. Preserve the original heading, character ranges and layout; do not repair excerpt text. Exclude letter boilerplate and uncertain pages. Stop at observed table headings; do not infer table columns or scalar results from layout text. Multi-column or suspicious split-numeric excerpts are excluded until reviewed alternate extraction is available. Original layout records remain retained; any alternate text has its own extractor-version locator and requires original-page review. For each dimension, prefer usable versioned alternate text where available, selecting its longest usable excerpt; otherwise select the longest usable original-layout excerpt. Ties preserve source order. Bounded to 64 PDF pages and 3,500 characters per section. This is a selection, not a complete dossier analysis.

Excluded extraction items: {}.

Known facts and deciding inputs

Known context: US. Confirm the organisation’s role, relevant activities and markets against the cited criteria.

Source factRecorded valueWhat to check
510(k) identifierK150095 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Generic device categoryReDs Wearable System [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Recorded applicantSensible Medical Innovations , Ltd. [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
FDA product codeDSB [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Decision date2015-08-06 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Recorded decision codeSESE [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Submission typeTraditional [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Receipt date2015-01-16 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.

Prepare a differences and evidence worksheet

Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.

  1. Indications and users — what differs in our product?

    Compare the recorded indication, population, body site and use environment with your proposed label. Record each change instead of assuming the primary code settles intended use.

    Useful evidence: Our proposed indication, user/population and use environment beside this exact recorded indication.

  2. Design and operating principle — what differs in our product?

    Compare physical design, materials, energy, accessories and operating principle with your design. Ask which documented differences change the evidence scope.

    Useful evidence: Design description, materials/components, accessory list and a differences matrix.

  3. Recorded comparison and differences — what differs in our product?

    The summary’s comparison is a manufacturer statement about that submission. Investigate the actual design differences and cited records before considering any comparator or predicate.

    Useful evidence: Feature-by-feature differences and the underlying cited documents; no automated predicate selection.

  4. Non-clinical evidence actually described — what differs in our product?

    Treat these as documented evidence themes in this case, including any limitations or negative statements. Ask which protocols, design inputs and acceptance rationale would be justified for your product; these excerpts are not a mandatory test panel.

    Useful evidence: Existing protocols/results and design-specific evidence gaps, with standard editions and scope reviewed separately.

  5. Performance evidence actually described — what differs in our product?

    The source labels this section as performance data. Determine which described evidence is bench, software, biological or clinical from the actual narrative and original tables; the section label alone does not settle that distinction or prescribe your testing.

    Useful evidence: The cited narrative and full tables, underlying protocols/results and a reviewed comparison with the proposed product.

Work packages and dependencies

Questions for providers

Sources and data dates

Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.

FDA openFDA — 510(k) decision records ↗

2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D01 · snapshot 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002

  • [1] device-510k-0001-of-0001.json:results[74467] · record bb2e0030669813ce5c20da2c94e697ff91cbbe605be9df0aabe12c2ac3abf2c1
  • [4] Complete results array / fda-decision-context:K150095 · record whole dataset partition

FDA 510(k) summary — K150095 ↗

Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:53:05 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-07

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D02 · snapshot d0071528e8deefd35b167b35d498c8378a5cda41cc8310498176234fbba8f00f

  • [2] PDF page 5 · record f7c31ac996eeb78c6d6501f1cd5cd486cc27d17013770bad6c65d223185009b7
  • [3] PDF page 6 · record 563663b71fc443cc27f68c462a16d9356bf75fd0fe81507b8f8f28a6dd57d5f9

Prepare an editable project brief

Confirm the facts, scope and contact preference before sharing your project. Preparing this page sends no provider outreach.

Choose work packages to discuss

Compare FDA 510(k) Submission Services