| Title |
The relative trending accuracy of noninvasive continuous hemoglobin monitoring during hemodialysis in critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10877-014-9574-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiroshi Yamada, Minako Saeki, Junko Ito, Kazuhiro Kawada, Aya Higurashi, Hiromi Funakoshi, Kohji Takeda |
| Abstract |
The pulse CO-Oximeter (Radical-7; Masimo Corp., Irvine, CA) is a multi-wavelength spectrophotometric method for noninvasive continuous monitoring of hemoglobin (SpHb). Because evaluating the relative change in blood volume (ΔBV) is crucial to avoid hypovolemia and hypotension during hemodialysis, it would be of great clinical benefit if ΔBV could be estimated by measurement of SpHb during hemodialysis. The capability of the pulse CO-Oximeter to monitor ΔBV depends on the relative trending accuracy of SpHb. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the relative trending accuracy of SpHb by the pulse CO-Oximeter using Crit-Line as a reference device. In 12 patients who received hemodialysis (total 22 sessions) in the intensive care unit, ΔBV was determined from SpHb. Relative changes in blood volume determined from SpHb were calculated according to the equation: ΔBV(SpHb) = [starting SpHb]/[current SpHb] - 1. The absolute values of SpHb and hematocrit measured by Crit-Line (CL-Hct) showed poor correlation. On the contrary, linear regression analysis showed good correlation between ΔBV(SpHb) and the relative change in blood volume measured by Crit-Line [ΔBV(CL-Hct)] (r = 0.83; P ≤ 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis also revealed good agreement between ΔBV(SpHb) and ΔBV(CL-Hct) (bias, -0.77 %; precision, 3.41 %). Polar plot analysis revealed good relative trending accuracy of SpHb with an angular bias of 4.1° and radial limits of agreement of 24.4° (upper) and -16.2° (lower). The results of the current study indicate that SpHb measurement with the pulse CO-Oximeter has good relative trending accuracy. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 22% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 65% |
| Engineering | 3 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2014.
All research outputs
#4,165,350
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#72
of 665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,533
of 227,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them