↓ Skip to main content

Utility of Pulse Oximetry to Detect Aspiration: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 1,373)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
Title
Utility of Pulse Oximetry to Detect Aspiration: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review
Published in
Dysphagia, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00455-017-9868-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deanna Britton, Amy Roeske, Stephanie K. Ennis, Joshua O. Benditt, Cassie Quinn, Donna Graville

Abstract

Pulse oximetry is a commonly used means to measure peripheral capillary oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2). Potential use of pulse oximetry to detect aspiration is attractive to clinicians, as it is readily available, quick, and noninvasive. However, research regarding validity has been mixed. This systematic review examining evidence on the use of pulse oximetry to detect a decrease in SpO2 indicating aspiration during swallowing is undertaken to further inform clinical practice in dysphagia assessment. A multi-engine electronic search was conducted on 8/25/16 and updated on 4/8/17 in accordance with standards published by the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria included use of pulse oximetry to detect aspiration with simultaneous confirmation of aspiration via a gold standard instrumental study. Keywords included dysphagia or aspiration AND pulse oximetry. Articles meeting criteria were reviewed by two blinded co-investigators. The search yielded 294 articles, from which 19 were judged pertinent and reviewed in full. Ten met the inclusion criteria and all were rated at Level III-2 on the Australian Diagnostic Levels of Evidence. Study findings were mixed with sensitivity ranging from 10 to 87%. Potentially confounding variables were observed in all studies reviewed, and commonly involved defining "desaturation" within a standard measurement error range (~ 2%), mixed populations, mixed viscosities/textures observed during swallowing, and lack of comparison group. The majority of studies failed to demonstrate an association between observed aspiration and oxygen desaturation. Current evidence does not support the use of pulse oximetry to detect aspiration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Other 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 40 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 47 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 16%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Linguistics 5 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 42 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,027,780
of 25,368,786 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia
#24
of 1,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,113
of 443,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,368,786 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 443,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.