Continuous pulse oximetry versus no/intermittent pulse oximetry for perioperative monitoring

Patient or population: patients undergoing surgery requiring anaesthesia
Settings:
Intervention: continuous pulse oximetry versus no/intermittent pulse oximetry

Episodes of hypoxaemia (SpO2 < 90%)

Not estimable

235
(two studies)

See comment

Results not pooled. Significantly lower incidence of hypoxaemia in oximetry group in OR and in recovery room

Changes to patient care

Not estimable

21,037
(three studies)

See comment

Results not pooled. Two studies showed increased numbers of changes in ventilatory support and increased oxygen in oximetry group

Complications

Not estimable

20,802
(one study)

See comment

No reduction seen in number of cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological or infectious complications

In‐hospital mortality

Not estimable

22,021
(two studies)

See comment

Results not pooled. No difference in mortality between oximetry and control groups

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.