ArticlePloS one2025
A synthetic control evaluation of the use of pulse oximeters in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in England.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo measure the impact of the use of pulse oximeters in early detection of oxygen saturation deterioration for patients testing positive with COVID-19 in preventing emergency hospital utilisation and death. This intervention was rolled out across England (part of the United Kingdom) as the COVID Oximetry @home programme.
designCausal inference study informed by linked national administrative and surveillance data-sets to detect the difference in impact of the COVID Oximetry @home programme by comparing areas of the country with high uptake of the programme with areas with low uptake of the programme using generalised synthetic controls.
settingThis intervention was rolled out across all Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England, administrative geographical areas often aligned with local authorities. All CCGs were invited to submit participation data to the National Health Service in England. Those CCGs that submitted complete data were included in the study.
participantsPatients registered with participating CCGs who tested positive for COVID-19, and where either 65 years of age or over, or clinically extremely vulnerable. OUTCOMES: A&E attendances, emergency admissions, admissions into critical care and mortality within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 diagnosis.
resultsNo differences were detected in the rate of emergency hospital use or mortality between CCGs with high uptake and CCGs with low uptake.
conclusionThe lack of impact detected on all outcomes of interest may simply be due to an absence of impact. Factors that may have impacted the ability to detect an effect are the low uptake of the programme, heterogeneity in the implementation of the pathway, or design limitations of the study.
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.