Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38992188›Full record

ReviewCommunications medicine2024

Melanometry for objective evaluation of skin pigmentation in pulse oximetry studies.

Sandhya Vasudevan, William C Vogt, Sandy Weininger, T Joshua Pfefer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Vitiligo Information Resource database v3.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review.American journal of hypertension · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Sandhya VasudevanCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA. sandhya.vasudevan@fda.hhs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1315-2217
William C VogtCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Sandy WeiningerCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
T Joshua PfeferCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9063-8387

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulse oximetry enables real-time, noninvasive monitoring of arterial blood oxygen levels. However, results can vary with skin color, thus detecting disparities during clinical validation studies requires an accurate measure of skin pigmentation. Recent clinical studies have used subjective methods such as self-reported color, race/ethnicity to categorize skin. Melanometers based on optical reflectance may offer a more effective, objective approach to assess pigmentation. Here, we review melanometry approaches and assess evidence supporting their use as clinical research tools. We compare performance data, including repeatability, robustness to confounders, and compare devices to each other, to subjective methods, and high-quality references. Finally, we propose best practices for evaluating melanometers and discuss alternate optical approaches that may improve accuracy. Whilst evidence indicates that melanometers can provide superior performance to subjective approaches, we encourage additional research and standardization efforts, as these are needed to ensure consistent and reliable results in clinical studies.

Identifiers

PMID38992188
PMCPMC11239860

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.