ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Noninvasive estimation of oxygenation index in pediatric critical care: an independent retrospective observational validation.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To independently validate an empirically optimized algorithm for calculating estimated Oxygenation Index (eOI) using noninvasive parameters from pediatric intensive care populations. Design: Retrospective observational cohort study using an integrated patient data repository spanning over 12 years (August 2012-December 2024). Setting: Single tertiary children's hospital with general pediatric ICU (PICU) and cardiothoracic ICU (CTICU). Key measures: Arterial blood gas measurements were paired with coincident SpO Results: Analysis included 68,915 observations from 7,109 subjects (44,133 CTICU, 24,782 PICU observations). Bias was minimal in both populations: PICU 0.06 (95% CI; 0.03, 0.10) and CTICU 0.12 (95% CI; 0.09, 0.14). Limits of agreement were -5.2 to 5.4 (PICU) and -4.9 to 5.2 (CTICU). Discrimination performance was excellent, at 3 hypoxemia thresholds (AUROC; 0.91-0.98), and in the CTICU for OI ≥4 when SpO Conclusions: The new eOI algorithm provides accurate, but not precise, estimation of OI in both general pediatric and cardiothoracic ICU populations. Noninvasive OI monitoring may be shown clinically useful.
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.