ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of the performance of three pulse oximeters at different probe positions in awake rabbits.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Evaluation of a detomidine-ketamine-azaperone combination for the chemical immobilization of fallow deer (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In rabbits, pulse oximetry plays a crucial role in monitoring oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR), but it can be challenging due to their small size, variable anatomy, limited measurement sites, and potential motion artifacts during measurements. This prospective randomized study aimed to assess the reliability of three pulse oximeters on the forelimb and tail of fifty awake, healthy European rabbits. Two pulse oximeters, the Masimo Rad-5 (device 1) and the Edan VE-H100B, were tested, with the latter using both a Y-clip (device 2) and the Nellcor OxiMax adhesive finger sensor (device 3). Reliable values of SpO2 and PR were considered ≥ 95% and ≥ 151 bpm, respectively, which are normal values in a healthy rabbit. Success rates of the devices were calculated as the ratio of reliable to unreliable/missing values and compared using χ2 tests. Correlation and agreement between PR and clinically measured heart rate (cHR) were assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and Bland-Altman analysis, respectively. Success rates differed significantly among devices (p < 0.001). The SpO2 success rates were 46%, 95.6%, and 94.4% for devices 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The PR success rates were 54.6%, 63%, and 72.8% for devices 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Success rates were higher on the forelimb (>66%) than on the tail (>26%) across devices. Correlation between PR and cHR was stronger on forelimb (r > 0.80) than on tail (r < 0.70). Agreement between PR and cHR was similar among devices, with a mean bias ranging from -6.6 to 6.7 bpm, and limits of agreement from -33.8 to 41.5 bpm. The Edan devices showed superior ability to detect reliable values of SpO2 and PR compared to the Masimo in rabbits. The forelimb appears to be a more reliable site for pulse oximetry in rabbits than the tail.
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.