ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation of agreement between a noninvasive method for real-time measurement of critical blood values with a standard point-of-care device.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to investigate the degree of agreement between two distinct approaches for measuring a set of blood values and to compare comfort levels reported by participants when utilizing these two disparate measurement methods. Radial arterial blood was collected for the comparator analysis using the Abbott i-STAT® POCT device. In contrast, the non-invasive proprietary DBC methodology is used to calculate sodium, potassium, chloride, ionized calcium, total carbon dioxide, pH, bicarbonate, and oxygen saturation using four input parameters (temperature, hemoglobin, pO2, and pCO2). Agreement between the measurement for a set of blood values obtained using i-STAT and DBC methodology was compared using intraclass correlation coefficients, Passing and Bablok regression analyses, and Bland Altman plots. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 37 participants were included in this study. The mean age of the participants was 42.4 ± 13 years, most were male (65%), predominantly Caucasian/White (75%), and of Hispanic ethnicity (40%). The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) analyses indicated agreement levels ranging from poor to moderate between i-STAT and the DBC's algorithm for Hb, pCO2, HCO3, TCO2, and Na, and weak agreement for pO2, HSO2, pH, K, Ca, and Cl. The Passing and Bablok regression analyses demonstrated that values for Hb, pO2, pCO2, TCO2, Cl, and Na obtained from the i-STAT did not differ significantly from that of the DBC's algorithm suggesting good agreement. The values for Hb, K, and Na measured by the DBC algorithm were slightly higher than those obtained by the i-STAT, indicating some systematic differences between these two methods on Bland Altman Plots. The non-invasive DBC methodology was found to be reliable and robust for most of the measured blood values compared to invasive POCT i-STAT device in healthy participants. These findings need further validation in larger samples and among individuals afflicted with various medical conditions.
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.