SynthesisJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2025
Non-invasive vs biological blood determination of haemoglobinemia for perioperative management: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- HOPFIT: A neuro-cardiovascular monitoring framework for precision sedation, anaesthesia, and resuscitation.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Performance and Trending Ability of Continuous Non-Invasive Hemoglobin Monitoring During Elective Intracranial Neurosurgery with Invasive Arterial Monitoring: Influence of Anesthetic Technique.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Is Pulse Co-Oximetry a Reliable Alternative to Invasive Hemoglobin Measurement in Pediatric Neurosurgical Procedures?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
introductionHaemoglobin measurement is an essential parameter for quantifying anaemia and often used for guiding transfusion decisions. Conventional methods require blood sampling and are invasive. Results are intermittent, discontinuous and obtained after a reasonable acquisition time. Hemoglobinemia by pulsed co-oximetry is non-invasive, immediate and offers the advantage of continuous monitoring. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of pulsed co-oximetry compared with reference biological determinations in perioperative management.
methodsThe review was registered in PROSPERO and performed according to the PRISMA statement. Searches in Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were performed from January 2000 to February 2024 for studies comparing non-invasive haemoglobin measurement with invasive methods. The QUADAS-2 scale was used to assess the risk of bias. For data analysis, Review Manager 5.4.1 software was employed, using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals. Sensitivity analysis were performed in order to assess the influence of site of blood sampling (arterial or venous), revision model reference of the Masimo finger sensor, the geographical location of the study centre, the risk of bias classification, the population type and the type of study.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 36 studies involving 1888 patients. Meta-analysis revealed a mean difference between the non-invasive and invasive methods of 0.13 g.dL-1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10- 0.36) (P-value > 0.05). Sensitivity analyses showed no statistically significant difference between the two methods. There was a very good homogeneity among the studies (I
conclusionThe results obtained support the reliability of pulsed co-oximetry. Considering the potential benefits of this parameter, it seems rational to integrate this technology perioperatively to guide standard clinical practices for optimizing the management of surgical patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40739388What 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.