ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2017
Performance of Two Different Pulse Oximeters in Neonatal Transition.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of two different pulse oximeter technologies by comparing the time taken to achieve reliable oxygen saturation readings during neonatal transition.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was done to compare the performance of two pulse oximeter technologies - Signal Extraction Technology (SET), and Resistor Calibration (RCAL) technology on 150 inborn, term neonates at birth. Probes of both pulse oximeters were connected to the pre-ductal limb and the time taken to obtain a reliable reading was recorded. Sequential saturation values were recorded every minute till ten minutes of life. Statistical analysis was done with Mann-Whitney U test and intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated.
resultsPulse oximeter with SET recorded reliable readings faster than RCAL technology - Median (IQR) 32 (21-60)s vs. 45 (21.75-105)s, p = 0.021. There was a significant difference in the time to record first saturation readings of the two pulse oximeters when used in normal deliveries [RCAL vs. SET-Median (IQR) 50s (25-120.75) vs. 32.5s (21.75-58.25), p = 0.004] but no such difference was observed in Lower Segment Cesarean section (LSCS) [RCAL vs. SET Median (IQR) 35.5s (18.25-70.75) vs. 31s (20-69.75), p = 0.968]. Sequential saturation readings for every minute for the first 10 min of life were higher with SET vs. RCAL technology. The intraclass correlation coefficient between both pulse oximeters, for each minute, was poor (r < 0.80).
conclusionsThe SET pulse oximeter picked up first saturation values faster than the RCAL technology pulse oximeters. Studies are needed to evaluate effect of this on decisions made during neonatal resuscitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.