You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Response to: ‘Randomised crossover study on pulse oximeter readings from different sensors in very preterm infants’ by Sharma et al

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Response to: ‘Randomised crossover study on pulse oximeter readings from different sensors in very preterm infants’ by Sharma et al
  1. Christian Achim Maiwald1,2,
  2. Christoph E Schwarz3,
  3. Katrin Böckmann1,
  4. Laila Springer1,
  5. Christian F Poets1,
  6. Axel R Franz1,2
  1. 1 Department of Neonatology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
  2. 2 Center for Pediatric Clinical Studies (CPCS), University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
  3. 3 Department of Neonatology, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Professor Christian F Poets; christian-f.poets{at}med.uni-tuebingen.de

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2024-327973

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We thank Sharma et al for their critical appraisal1 of our cross-over study on SpO2 readings of different neonatal sensors.2 They suggest inappropriate data collection and misinterpretation of data to explain our findings; we like to comment on these points.

    Before going into detail, we would like to point out that we are extremely grateful to Masimo for their continuing efforts in improving pulse oximetry’s performance and thereby patient care. We neither intended to express a preference for one SpO2 sensor type nor to denigrate its measurement precision; as rightly pointed out, this would have required co-oximetry. Also, we agree that the RD sensor’s SpO2 readings reflect SaO2 more precisely and with less variability, as also evident from the tighter distribution of measured SpO2 values in our graphical illustration.

    The authors claim that we obtained incorrect …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Collaborators Not applicable.

    • Contributors CAM, ARF and CFP drafted the first version of the manuscript. LS, KB and CES reviewed the manuscript and made important contributions. All authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. CAM is the guarantor for this manuscript.

    • Funding Masimo Corporation, Irvine, provided the LNCS, RD-, and PPG-sensors used in our original study

    • Competing interests CFP received advisory board honoraria from Masimo, Irvine, California, in September 2020. ARF and CFP declared that Masimo generously supported SpO2 measurements in a previous and an ongoing clinical trial. In the original study, Masimo provided also the required LNCS, RD and PPG sensors. However, Masimo had no impact on the design of the original study, analysis of the data and writing of the manuscripts.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.