Evidence Hub

Racial bias and reproducibility in pulse oximetry among medical and surgical inpatients in general care in the Veterans Health Administration 2013-19: multicenter, retrospective cohort study

V. Valbuena, S. Seelye, M. Sjoding, T. Valley, R. Dickson, S. Gay, D. Claar, H. Prescott et al.

British medical journal, 2022

53 participants · 123 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To evaluate measurement discrepancies by race between pulse oximetry and arterial oxygen saturation (as measured in arterial blood gas) among inpatients not in intensive care. Design Multicenter, retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records from general care medical and surgical inpatients. Setting Veteran Health Administration, a national and racially diverse integrated health system in the United States, from 2013 to 2019. Participants Adult inpatients in general care (medical and surgical), in Veteran Health Administration medical centers. Main outcomes measures Occult hypoxemia (defined as arterial blood oxygen saturation (SaO2) of <88% despite a pulse oximetry (SpO2) reading of ≥92%), and whether rates of occult hypoxemia varied by race and ethnic origin. Results A total of 30 039 pairs of SpO2-SaO2 readings made within 10 minutes of each other were identified during the study. These pairs were predominantly among non-Hispanic white (21 918 (73.0%)) patients; non-Hispanic black patients and Hispanic or Latino patients accounted for 6498 (21.6%) and 1623 (5.4%) pairs in the sample, respectively. Among SpO2 values greater or equal to 92%, unadjusted probabilities of occult hypoxemia were 15.6% (95% confidence interval 15.0% to 16.1%) in white patients, 19.6% (18.6% to 20.6%) in black patients (P<0.001 v white patients, with similar P values in adjusted models), and 16.2% (14.4% to 18.1%) in Hispanic or Latino patients (P=0.53 v white…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 53 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free