510(k) Predicate Finder
Find potential predicate devices for your 510(k) submission. Enter a K-number to find all clearances with the same product code, a three-letter product code to browse clearances directly, or search by device name.
Let the assistant find your predicates
Describe your device and the Research Assistant searches 510(k)s, compares intended use, and drafts a predicate shortlist — with citations.
Free to try · every answer cites its records
Electroconvulsive Therapy Device For Catatonia, Major Depressive Disorder, And Bipolar Disorder
Neurology
The Electroconvulsive Therapy Device For Catatonia, Major Depressive Disorder, And Bipolar Disorder is indicated for the treatment of catatonia or severe major depressive episodes associated with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in patients age 13 years and older who are treatment-resistant or require a rapid response due to the severity of their psychiatric or medical condition. It is classified as FDA Class 2, requiring 510(k) premarket notification under regulation 882.5940 in the Neurology specialty. The product code is QGH. It is not an implant and is not life-sustaining.
510(k) Clearances
9 matchesWhat is a Predicate Device?
A predicate device is a legally marketed device that a new 510(k) applicant uses to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The FDA's 510(k) pathway requires manufacturers to show that their device has the same intended use and similar technological characteristics as one or more predicate devices already cleared for commercial distribution.
Finding the right predicate is a critical step in 510(k) strategy. Manufacturers typically search for cleared devices with the same FDA product code, which groups devices by their intended use and regulatory classification. This tool helps you identify potential predicates by browsing all clearances within a product code.
Note that predicate devices must be legally marketed — they cannot be devices that were cleared but never commercialized, or devices subject to a mandatory recall. The determination of substantial equivalence considers intended use, technological characteristics, and performance data.