2013
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.02288
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Noninvasive Carbon Monoxide Detection: Insufficient Evidence for Broad Clinical Use

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, there was not a good correlation between these two measures, a finding that has been seen in other long-term environmental CO monitoring studies [ 27 ]. Lam et al also noted difficulties in correlating solid fuel associated CO exposure with COHgB particularly at lower levels [ 26 ], and in larger scale clinical testing scenarios, accuracy, precision, and correlation with CO levels as measured by the Rad-57 have been variable with reports of both over- and under-estimation [ 28 ]. The poor association in this study is likely due to a number of reasons, including the complex kinetics of COHgB and fluctuating exposure to CO with COHgB reflecting more recent exposure, participants’ levels of exercise and activity, possible lack of precision in COHgB measurements due to field conditions or user error, possible poor compliance with wearing the Lascar monitor, and the lack of accuracy of co-oximeter testing at low levels of CO exposure [ 23 , 29 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, there was not a good correlation between these two measures, a finding that has been seen in other long-term environmental CO monitoring studies [ 27 ]. Lam et al also noted difficulties in correlating solid fuel associated CO exposure with COHgB particularly at lower levels [ 26 ], and in larger scale clinical testing scenarios, accuracy, precision, and correlation with CO levels as measured by the Rad-57 have been variable with reports of both over- and under-estimation [ 28 ]. The poor association in this study is likely due to a number of reasons, including the complex kinetics of COHgB and fluctuating exposure to CO with COHgB reflecting more recent exposure, participants’ levels of exercise and activity, possible lack of precision in COHgB measurements due to field conditions or user error, possible poor compliance with wearing the Lascar monitor, and the lack of accuracy of co-oximeter testing at low levels of CO exposure [ 23 , 29 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In clinical settings and generally for living patients, a noninvasive alternative to venous or arterial blood COHb measurement by a BGA or CO-oximetry that has been widely investigated is pulse CO-oximetry [39][40][41][42][43].…”
Section: Analytical Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Being able to diagnose a CO poisoning case quickly is necessary, but if the results obtained over-or underestimate the true COHb levels, this can have severe and potentially fatal consequences. Several studies have reported low precision and accuracy as well as an elevated false positive and negative rate, as opposed to regular blood measurements [5,[39][40][41][42]. Especially for COHb levels above 10%, pulse CO-oximeters significantly underestimated the COHb levels [39].…”
Section: Sources Of Errormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Diese können bereits nach leichten Intoxikationen mit einem COHb-Wert um 10 % entstehen und manifestieren sich bei bis zu 50 % der Betroffenen [10,27]. [10,28,29].…”
Section: Merkeunclassified