↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pulse oximeters to self monitor oxygen saturation levels as part of a personalised asthma action plan for people with asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Pulse oximeters to self monitor oxygen saturation levels as part of a personalised asthma action plan for people with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011584.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma J Welsh, Robin Carr

Abstract

We became aware through talking with people with asthma that some are using pulse oximeters to monitor their own blood oxygen levels during an asthma attack. Pulse oximeters are marketed by some suppliers as essential equipment for the home medicine cabinet. We wanted to find out if reliable evidence is available on use of pulse oximeters to self monitor asthma exacerbations at home. We decided to include only trials that used pulse oximeters as part of a personalised asthma action plan because it is important that decisions are made on the basis of symptoms as well as oxygen saturation, and that patients have a clear protocol to follow when their asthma worsens. To determine whether pulse oximeters used as part of a personalised asthma action plan for people with asthma are safer and more effective than a personalised asthma action plan alone. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), which includes reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO, and by handsearching. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Participants would have included adults, children or both with a diagnosis of asthma. We planned to include trials in which investigators compared participants who used pulse oximeters to monitor oxygen levels at home during an asthma exacerbation as part of a personalised asthma action plan (PAAP) versus those who used a PAAP without a pulse oximeter. We planned to include studies involving people receiving any treatment regimen provided that no medicine was included as part of the randomisation schedule. We planned to use standard methods as recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We found no studies and no evidence to support or refute the use of home pulse oximetry in self management of asthma; therefore, we can make no recommendations about use of a pulse oximeter as part of a PAAP. We found no reliable data to support or refute patient use of pulse oximeters to monitor oxygen saturation levels when experiencing an asthma attack. People should not use a pulse oximeter without seeking advice from a qualified healthcare professional.We identified no compelling rationale for home monitoring of oxygen levels in isolation for most people with asthma. Some people have a reduced perception of the severity of their own breathlessness when exposed to hypoxia. If trials on self monitoring of oxygen levels in the blood by pulse oximeter at home by people with asthma are conducted, the pulse oximeter must be given as part of a personalised asthma action plan.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 22%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 22%
Psychology 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 28 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2020.
All research outputs
#656,251
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,647
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,096
of 255,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.