2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2006.07.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of forehead and digit oximetry in surgical/trauma patients at risk for decreased peripheral perfusion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
24
0
4

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
24
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar to others, 18,28,29 we noted that an oximeter located on 1 part of the body detected changing oxygen saturation earlier than an oximeter located on another part of the body. In general, pulse oximeter sensors placed on the forehead or earlobe detected changes in oxygen saturation earlier than sensors placed on fingers or toes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Similar to others, 18,28,29 we noted that an oximeter located on 1 part of the body detected changing oxygen saturation earlier than an oximeter located on another part of the body. In general, pulse oximeter sensors placed on the forehead or earlobe detected changes in oxygen saturation earlier than sensors placed on fingers or toes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…18 Several clinical studies have compared the performance of the finger and forehead sensors in a variety of patient populations. [19][20][21][22][23] In studies evaluating device accuracy by comparing noninvasive sensor oxygen saturation values to arterial blood gas analysis, statistically significant differences were found between the accuracy of the finger and forehead sensors, with forehead sensors more accurate in patients with low cardiac index states (P , 0.005), 22 hypothermic body temperatures (P , 0.001), 20 and patients on vasopressor and/or large-volume transfusion therapy (P , 0.001). 23 Limited clinical studies have evaluated performance related to signal dropout rates.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[19][20][21][22][23] In studies evaluating device accuracy by comparing noninvasive sensor oxygen saturation values to arterial blood gas analysis, statistically significant differences were found between the accuracy of the finger and forehead sensors, with forehead sensors more accurate in patients with low cardiac index states (P , 0.005), 22 hypothermic body temperatures (P , 0.001), 20 and patients on vasopressor and/or large-volume transfusion therapy (P , 0.001). 23 Limited clinical studies have evaluated performance related to signal dropout rates. [20][21][22] All of these studies found fewer episodes of signal dropout in the forehead sensor compared with the finger sensor in small numbers of critically ill patients 20,22 and during field transport of hypothermic patients to the emergency department.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this bias was larger than the 1% bias between the forehead and finger disposable probes. We suspect that this difference is probably due to manufacturer differences, although there are few studies that evaluated this (22,23).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%