ArticleCureus2025
Beyond Total Error: An Observational Comparative Study of Sigma Metrics in Long-Term Arterial Blood Gas Analyzer Performance.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate respiratory and metabolic status evaluation requires valid and reliable arterial blood gas (ABG) analyzers. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of three (ABG) analyzers using total error (TE) and sigma metric (SM) to establish a robust framework for clinical device performance monitoring.
methodsThe performance of three ABG analyzers (A, B, and C) was evaluated using third-party quality control materials from Randox® across three levels for pH, PCO₂, and PO₂. Each level was analyzed 20 times per analyzer over five days. TE and SM were calculated using standard formulas, with total allowable error (TEa) derived from the 2024 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) guidelines. Mean values were compared to manufacturer-provided target ranges, and performance was assessed against accuracy specifications and Sigma metrics.
resultsAll analyzers achieved acceptable mean values within target ranges. Accuracy (TE < TEa) was met for PO₂ and PCO₂ across all analyzers but failed for pH in analyzer A (levels 1, 2), analyzer B (all levels), and analyzer C (levels 1, 3). Sigma metrics showed suboptimal performance for pH (1.6-2.06), PCO₂ ranged from Unaccepted (1.61) to Good (4.34), and PO₂ indicated Good to World-Class performance. No significant differences were observed among analyzers for SM or TE (p > 0.05), but accuracy strongly correlated with performance consistency (Cramér's V = 0.918, p < 0.001).
conclusionThis study underscores the limitations of relying solely on TE and highlights the importance of integrating SM to ensure reliable and clinically relevant ABG analyzer evaluations.
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.