Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37105736›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2023

Home monitoring by pulse oximetry of primary care patients with COVID-19: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Karin Smit, Roderick P Venekamp, Loeke A Krol, Geert-Jan Geersing, Lisette Schoonhoven, Karin Ah Kaasjager, Frans H Rutten, Dorien Lm Zwart

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Patients' and GPs' views and expectations of home monitoring with a pulse oximeter: a mixed-methods process evaluation of a pilot randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Karin SmitDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.ORCID 0000-0002-0839-4185
Roderick P VenekampDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.ORCID 0000-0002-1446-9614
Loeke A KrolDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Geert-Jan GeersingDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.ORCID 0000-0001-6976-9844
Lisette SchoonhovenDepartment of Public Health, Healthcare Innovation and Evaluation and Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.ORCID 0000-0002-7129-3766
Karin Ah KaasjagerDepartment of Acute Internal Medicine, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.ORCID 0000-0001-6958-8285
Frans H RuttenDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.ORCID 0000-0002-5052-7332
Dorien Lm ZwartDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht.ORCID 0000-0003-0098-4882
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPulse oximetry as a home or remote monitoring tool accelerated during the pandemic for patients with COVID-19, but evidence on its use is lacking.

aimTo assess the feasibility of home monitoring by pulse oximetry of patients aged ≥40 years with cardiovascular comorbidity and moderate-to-severe COVID-19. DESIGN AND

settingA primary care-based, open, pilot randomised controlled trial, with nested process evaluation, was undertaken in the Netherlands.

methodFrom November 2020 to June 2021, eligible patients presenting to one of 14 participating Dutch general practices were randomly allocated to regular measurement of peripheral oxygen saturation (at least three SpO

resultsAll 41 participants (21 intervention, 20 usual care) completed the 45-day follow-up period. Overall, the intervention group performed 97.6% of protocolised measurements; the median daily measurement per participant was 2.7 (interquartile range 1-4). Hypoxemia (SpO

conclusionHome monitoring of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 by pulse oximetry appeared feasible; adherence was high, patients reported a high feeling of safety, while the number of primary care consultations remained similar to usual care.

Indexed as

COVID-19HospitalizationHumansOximetryPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareCOVID-19general practiceoximetrypulse oximetrySARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37105736
PMCPMC9926282
OpenAlexW4309613081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.