ArticlePloS one2024
Patient use of pulse oximetry to support management of COVID-19 in Greater Manchester: A non-randomised evaluation using a target trial approach.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The impact of skin tone on performance of pulse oximeters used by NHS England COVID Oximetry @home scheme: measurement and diagnostic accuracy study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Observational
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
introductionThe pandemic saw widespread use of home pulse oximeters to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 to support early detection of low oxygen saturation levels and appropriate care. Rapid implementation made conventional evaluation challenging, highlighting the need for rigorous non-randomised methods to support decision-making about future use of these technologies. We used routine data to explore the benefits of pulse oximetry in Greater Manchester, under the 'COVID-19 oximetry at home' (CO@h) programme.
methodsWe used data from the Greater Manchester Secure Data Environment and defined study parameters using a 'target trial' model to compare patients receiving pulse oximetry under the CO@h programme, with matched controls using various comparator groups. Primary outcomes were unplanned hospitalisation and all-cause mortality. This study is based on data from the Greater Manchester Care Record (GMCR), using anonymised, routinely collected data provided in a de-identified format for research. Informed written consent is needed for primary care patient data to be collected for service improvement and research, before data extraction to the GMCR. The study was approved under protocol GMCR RQ-048, on 12/05/2022. As indicated by the University of Manchester ethics decision tool, formal ethical approval was not required for this study.
resultsThe adjusted odds ratios for an unplanned hospitalisation were higher among patients receiving pulse oximetry: OR 1.86 (95% CI 1.54-2.25) at 28 days, 1.5 (95% CI 1.3-1.74) at 90 days and 1.63 (95% CI 1.44-1.83) at 1 year. Overall odds of mortality were lower among patients receiving pulse oximetry: adjusted ORs of 0.5 (95% CI 0.25-0.98) at 28 days, 0.5 (95% CI 0.32-0.78) at 90 days and 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.76) at 1 year. The results were robust to different comparison groups.
conclusionUse of pulse oximetry at home under the CO@h programme, through the resulting prioritisation for appropriate care, was associated with a higher frequency of unplanned admissions and a reduction in the risk of mortality up to 1 year later. Therefore, it is likely effective for early detection of clinical deterioration and timely intervention among patients with COVID-19. Further research is needed to understand whether this is a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.
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.