Aashna M Modi1, Renee D Kiourkas1, Jie Li2, J Brady Scott3. 1. Respiratory Care Services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Department of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, Division of Respiratory Care, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, Division of Respiratory Care, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois. jonathan_b_scott@rush.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulse oximeters are used to measure [Formula: see text] and pulse rate. These devices are either standalone machines or integrated into physiologic monitoring systems. Some smartphones now have pulse oximetry capabilities. Because it is possible that some patients might utilize this technology, we sought to assess the accuracy and usability of smartphone pulse oximeters. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study that involved noninvasive measurements of [Formula: see text] and heart rate with 3 devices: Masimo Radical-7, Kenek Edge with the Apple iPhone 6S, and the Samsung S8 smartphone. Ambulatory adult patients visiting our institution's pulmonary function lab for a 6-min walk test were eligible to participate in the study. Pretest and posttest results for each subject were obtained simultaneously using all 3 devices. All results were analyzed with the Spearman rho correlation test, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreement of measures between the devices. RESULTS: Forty-seven subjects were enrolled in the study, with pulmonary hypertension (30%) and COPD (23%) being the 2 major diagnoses. The mean ± SD difference between the Masimo and Apple devices for pretest [Formula: see text] was 2.3 ± 2.4%, and the difference for posttest [Formula: see text] was 2.1 ± 3.9%. The mean difference between the Masimo and Samsung devices for pretest [Formula: see text] was 3.2 ± 2.8%, and the difference for posttest [Formula: see text] was 2.4 ± 3.5%. The number of subjects who were unable to obtain [Formula: see text] was higher with the Samsung device than with the Apple device in both pretest (14 of 47 vs 3 of 47) and posttest (17 of 47 vs 5 of 47). In contrast, the Masimo device was able to measure [Formula: see text] in all subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone pulse oximeters were unreliable compared to a hospital pulse oximeter. Further research is needed with evolving technology to better understand smartphone pulse oximetry. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03534271.).
BACKGROUND: Pulse oximeters are used to measure [Formula: see text] and pulse rate. These devices are either standalone machines or integrated into physiologic monitoring systems. Some smartphones now have pulse oximetry capabilities. Because it is possible that some patients might utilize this technology, we sought to assess the accuracy and usability of smartphone pulse oximeters. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study that involved noninvasive measurements of [Formula: see text] and heart rate with 3 devices: Masimo Radical-7, Kenek Edge with the Apple iPhone 6S, and the Samsung S8 smartphone. Ambulatory adult patients visiting our institution's pulmonary function lab for a 6-min walk test were eligible to participate in the study. Pretest and posttest results for each subject were obtained simultaneously using all 3 devices. All results were analyzed with the Spearman rho correlation test, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreement of measures between the devices. RESULTS: Forty-seven subjects were enrolled in the study, with pulmonary hypertension (30%) and COPD (23%) being the 2 major diagnoses. The mean ± SD difference between the Masimo and Apple devices for pretest [Formula: see text] was 2.3 ± 2.4%, and the difference for posttest [Formula: see text] was 2.1 ± 3.9%. The mean difference between the Masimo and Samsung devices for pretest [Formula: see text] was 3.2 ± 2.8%, and the difference for posttest [Formula: see text] was 2.4 ± 3.5%. The number of subjects who were unable to obtain [Formula: see text] was higher with the Samsung device than with the Apple device in both pretest (14 of 47 vs 3 of 47) and posttest (17 of 47 vs 5 of 47). In contrast, the Masimo device was able to measure [Formula: see text] in all subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone pulse oximeters were unreliable compared to a hospital pulse oximeter. Further research is needed with evolving technology to better understand smartphone pulse oximetry. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03534271.).
Authors: Jason S Hoffman; Varun K Viswanath; Caiwei Tian; Xinyi Ding; Matthew J Thompson; Eric C Larson; Shwetak N Patel; Edward J Wang Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2022-09-19