Abstract
Objective: Pulse oximetry is used to guide critical clinical decisions in neonatology. We used a vital signs simulator to compare performance of two pulse oximetry systems in conditions not tested in standardized clinical verification studies. Study design: We devised a set of simulated tissue translucency, perfusion, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and heart rate (HR) parameters to mimic challenging real-world neonatal data and applied them to two marketed pulse oximetry systems (Nellcor™ and Masimo®). At each combination of input parameters, we used the response from both systems to assess SpO2 error. Results: The mean SpO2 error for Nellcor™ was below 1.1% across all parameters explored, while Masimo® showed significantly higher (p < 0.005) error at lower translucencies. Conclusion: Significant performance differences can be observed when comparing pulse oximeters at low translucency and perfusion conditions. Patient simulators cannot replace clinical testing but provide a safe and cost-effective method for additional performance profiling.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1608-1614 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of Perinatology |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Nov 2025 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Identifying performance differences between two pulse oximetry systems in simulated critical neonatal conditions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver