ArticlePediatric pulmonology2024
Families' perceptions of consumer-grade, inexpensive oxygen saturation monitors.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of and Experience With Wearable Biosensors in Congenital Heart Disease: A Survey Study.CJC pediatric and congenital heart disease · 2026Article
- Families' perceptions of consumer-grade, inexpensive oxygen saturation monitors.Pediatric pulmonology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe evaluated what proportion of families have a consumer-grade pulse oximeter, why they bought one, and how they choose to use it. WORKING HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that children followed in cardiorespiratory clinics would be more likely to have an oximeter than children attending a more general clinic. STUDY DESIGN AND SUBJECT SELECTION: We carried out a cross-sectional study using a convenience sample of children attending a respirology, cardiology, or gastroenterology clinic at a children's hospital. Consenting guardians completed a survey.
resultsTwo-hundred families completed the survey. Fifty-three (26.5%; 53/200) had an oximeter at home. The proportion of children attending a cardiorespiratory clinic who had an oximeter was higher than another clinic (p = 0.08), but 15.5% of children attending the latter also had access to one. Of devices not funded by government insurance, over 80% of devices were "fingertip" clamp-style oximeters, and 50% were purchased online. Most devices were used only when the child was ill (83.7%; 36/43). Only about 1/3 of families had received education about using an oximeter, and a similar proportion had compared their oximeter to a medical-grade device. Only 2.4% (1/42) respondents did not feel that their device was "somewhat" or "very" accurate. The oxygen saturation that would prompt seeking emergency care was similar to most pediatric acute care guidelines.
conclusionsMany children, particularly those with cardiorespiratory conditions, have access to consumer-grade pulse oximeters. Asking about the presence of an oximeter should be part of the pediatric history, and families responding affirmatively should be offered education.
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.