Cochrane · systematic review · CD002013
Pulse oximetry for perioperative monitoring
Pedersen, T, Nicholson, A, Hovhannisyan, K, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
AnaesthesiaAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Continuous pulse oximetry versus no/intermittent pulse oximetry for perioperative monitoring
Population: patients undergoing surgery requiring anaesthesia
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Episodes of hypoxaemia (SpO2 < 90%) Continuous pulse oximetry vs no/intermittent pulse oximetry | no estimate extracted | 235 participants | Ungraded |
Changes to patient care Continuous pulse oximetry vs no/intermittent pulse oximetry | no estimate extracted | 21037 participants | Ungraded |
Complications Continuous pulse oximetry vs no/intermittent pulse oximetry | no estimate extracted | 20802 participants | Ungraded |
In‐hospital mortality Continuous pulse oximetry vs no/intermittent pulse oximetry | no estimate extracted | 22021 participants | Ungraded |