Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39109914›Full record

ArticlePediatric pulmonology2024

Families' perceptions of consumer-grade, inexpensive oxygen saturation monitors.

Danielle Charland, Thomas Kovesi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Danielle CharlandFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Onatrio, Canada.
Thomas KovesiFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Onatrio, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0521-8936

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

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

OximetryAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFamilyFemaleHumansInfantMaleOxygen Saturationchildconsumer health informationdirect‐to‐consumer testingheart diseasespulse oximetryrespiratory tract diseases

Identifiers

PMID39109914
PMCPMC11601012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.