Clayton D G, Webb R K, Ralston A C, Duthie D, Runciman W B
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Royal Adelaide Hospital, South Australia.
Anaesthesia. 1991 Apr;46(4):260-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1991.tb11492.x.
The performances of 10 pulse oximeters using finger probes were compared with the same pulse oximeters using alternative probes (eight finger probes, two nose probes and a forehead probe) in poorly perfused patients. All readings were then compared with directly measured arterial blood oxygen saturations. The mean difference (bias, 'accuracy'), standard deviation (precision) and 'drop out' rate for each pulse oximeter combination was determined. An overall ranking of performance of each pulse oximeter was calculated using five criteria (accuracy, precision, number of readings within 3% of standard, percentage of readings given within 3% of standard, expected overread limit in 95% of cases). Nose and forehead probes performed poorly. Some ear probes performed well compared to some finger probes, but the overall performance of probes in other sites compared to finger probes was worse, (p = 0.05). Two of eight ear probes and no nose or forehead probes would be expected to be within 4% of the reference value in 95% of readings. The use of finger probes rather than probes in other sites is recommended in the patient with poor peripheral perfusion.
在灌注不良的患者中，对10台使用手指探头的脉搏血氧仪与使用替代探头（8个手指探头、2个鼻探头和1个前额探头）的同一脉搏血氧仪的性能进行了比较。然后将所有读数与直接测量的动脉血氧饱和度进行比较。确定了每种脉搏血氧仪组合的平均差异（偏差，即“准确性”）、标准差（精密度）和“失读”率。使用五个标准（准确性、精密度、在标准值的3%范围内的读数数量、在标准值的3%范围内给出的读数百分比、95%情况下的预期超读数限值）计算了每个脉搏血氧仪的总体性能排名。鼻探头和前额探头表现不佳。与一些手指探头相比，一些耳探头表现良好，但与手指探头相比，其他部位探头的总体性能更差（p = 0.05）。在95%的读数中，预计8个耳探头中有2个、鼻探头或前额探头均无在参考值的4%范围内。对于外周灌注不良的患者，建议使用手指探头而非其他部位的探头。
