↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of Racial and Ethnic Differences in Oxygen Supplementation Among Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, August 2022
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 (#46 of 11,714)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
283 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
318 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of Racial and Ethnic Differences in Oxygen Supplementation Among Patients in the Intensive Care Unit
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, August 2022
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.2587
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric Raphael Gottlieb, Jennifer Ziegler, Katharine Morley, Barret Rush, Leo Anthony Celi

Abstract

Pulse oximetry (SpO2) is routinely used for transcutaneous monitoring of blood oxygenation, but it can overestimate actual oxygenation. This is more common in patients of racial and ethnic minority groups. The extent to which these discrepancies are associated with variations in treatment is not known. To determine if there are racial and ethnic disparities in supplemental oxygen administration associated with inconsistent pulse oximeter performance. This retrospective cohort study was based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV critical care data set. Included patients were documented with a race and ethnicity as Asian, Black, Hispanic, or White and were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for at least 12 hours before needing advanced respiratory support, if any. Oxygenation levels and nasal cannula flow rates for up to 5 days from ICU admission or until the time of intubation, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, or tracheostomy were analyzed. The primary outcome was time-weighted average supplemental oxygen rate. Covariates included race and ethnicity, sex, SpO2-hemoglobin oxygen saturation discrepancy, data duration, number and timing of blood gas tests on ICU days 1 to 3, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, hemoglobin level, average respiratory rate, Elixhauser comorbidity scores, and need for vasopressors or inotropes. This cohort included 3069 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.9 [13.5] years; 83 were Asian, 207 were Black, 112 were Hispanic, 2667 were White). In a multivariable linear regression, Asian (coefficient, 0.602; 95% CI, 0.263 to 0.941; P = .001), Black (coefficient, 0.919; 95% CI, 0.698 to 1.140; P < .001), and Hispanic (coefficient, 0.622; 95% CI, 0.329 to 0.915; P < .001) race and ethnicity were all associated with a higher SpO2 for a given hemoglobin oxygen saturation. Asian (coefficient, -0.291; 95% CI, -0.546 to -0.035; P = .03), Black (coefficient, -0.294; 95% CI, -0.460 to -0.128; P = .001), and Hispanic (coefficient, -0.242; 95% CI, -0.463 to -0.020; P = .03) race and ethnicity were associated with lower average oxygen delivery rates. When controlling for the discrepancy between average SpO2 and average hemoglobin oxygen saturation, race and ethnicity were not associated with oxygen delivery rate. This discrepancy mediated the effect of race and ethnicity (-0.157; 95% CI, -0.250 to -0.057; P = .002). In this cohort study, Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients received less supplemental oxygen than White patients, and this was associated with differences in pulse oximeter performance, which may contribute to known race and ethnicity-based disparities in care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 318 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Other 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Master 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 31 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Engineering 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 31 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2390. 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 20 March 2024.
All research outputs
#3,383
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#46
of 11,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132
of 433,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#2
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 85.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 433,767 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 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 97% of its contemporaries.