Comparative analysis of signal accuracy of three SpO2 monitors during motion and low perfusion conditions
Authors' conclusion
Overall, SpO2 device performance across the three devices in this study was similar under both motion and low perfusion conditions.
Study context
- Population
- Healthy adult volunteers under simulated motion or low perfusionor low perfusion 14
- Participants
- 28 healthy volunteers
- Comparison
- GE vs Masimo vs Nellcor
- Outcome
- SpO2 accuracy: ARMS and mean bias
Methodological detailshealthy volunteers, randomised assignment to test condition, within-subject control (test vs control hand), simulated motion and low perfusion
- Healthy volunteers
- Randomised assignment to test condition
- Within-subject control (test vs control hand)
- Simulated motion and low perfusion
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Overall ARMS and mean bias vs SaO2, simulated motion group
| Test or model | Value | Mean bias |
|---|---|---|
| GE | ARMS 1.88 | 0.45 |
| Masimo | ARMS 1.79 | - 0.21 |
| Nellcor | ARMS 2.40 | 0.78 |
Value
GEARMS 1.88
MasimoARMS 1.79
NellcorARMS 2.40
Mean bias
GE0.45
Masimo- 0.21
Nellcor0.78
Further findings
| Outcome | GE | Masimo | Nellcor |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARMS and mean bias vs SaO2, motion hand | 2.45 | 3.19 | 4.15 |
| Mean bias | - 0.01 | - 0.75 | 0.04 |
| ARMS and bias vs control hand SpO2 for low perfusion index, low perfusion group | 3.24 | 4.76 | 3.48 |
| Bias | 0.96 | 1.76 | - 0.53 |
Accuracy degradation
- Accuracy degraded for all 3 devices during motion vs non-motion
- Accuracy also degraded during normal to low, very low or ultra low perfusion, more pronounced than with simulated motion
- All tested devices met pulse oximetry regulatory and testing standards requirements
Original publication
Comparative analysis of signal accuracy of three SpO2 monitors during motion and low perfusion conditions. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 2 June 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →