Electronic health record data is unable to effectively characterize measurement error from pulse oximetry: a simulation study.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Elie Sarraf
{"title":"Electronic health record data is unable to effectively characterize measurement error from pulse oximetry: a simulation study.","authors":"Elie Sarraf","doi":"10.1007/s10877-024-01131-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Large data sets from electronic health records (EHR) have been used in journal articles to demonstrate race-based imprecision in pulse oximetry (SpO<sub>2</sub>) measurements. These articles do not appear to recognize the impact of the variability of the SpO<sub>2</sub> values with respect to time (\"deviation time\"). This manuscript seeks to demonstrate that due to this variability, EHR data should not be used to quantify SpO<sub>2</sub> error. Using the MIMIC-IV Waveform dataset, SpO<sub>2</sub> values are sampled from 198 patients admitted to an intensive care unit and used as reference samples. The error derived from the EHR data is simulated using a set of deviation times. The laboratory oxygen saturation measurements are also simulated such that the performance of three simulated pulse oximeter devices will produce an average root mean squared (A<sub>RMS</sub>) error of 2%. An analysis is then undertaken to reproduce a medical device submission to a regulatory body by quantifying the mean error, the standard deviation of the error, and the A<sub>RMS</sub> error. Bland-Altman plots were also generated with their Limits of Agreements. Each analysis was repeated to evaluate whether the measurement errors were affected by increasing the deviation time. All error values increased linearly with respect to the logarithm of the time deviation. At 10 min, the A<sub>RMS</sub> error increased from a baseline of 2% to over 4%. EHR data cannot be reliably used to quantify SpO<sub>2</sub> error. Caution should be used in interpreting prior manuscripts that rely on EHR data.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":"893-899"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01131-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Large data sets from electronic health records (EHR) have been used in journal articles to demonstrate race-based imprecision in pulse oximetry (SpO2) measurements. These articles do not appear to recognize the impact of the variability of the SpO2 values with respect to time ("deviation time"). This manuscript seeks to demonstrate that due to this variability, EHR data should not be used to quantify SpO2 error. Using the MIMIC-IV Waveform dataset, SpO2 values are sampled from 198 patients admitted to an intensive care unit and used as reference samples. The error derived from the EHR data is simulated using a set of deviation times. The laboratory oxygen saturation measurements are also simulated such that the performance of three simulated pulse oximeter devices will produce an average root mean squared (ARMS) error of 2%. An analysis is then undertaken to reproduce a medical device submission to a regulatory body by quantifying the mean error, the standard deviation of the error, and the ARMS error. Bland-Altman plots were also generated with their Limits of Agreements. Each analysis was repeated to evaluate whether the measurement errors were affected by increasing the deviation time. All error values increased linearly with respect to the logarithm of the time deviation. At 10 min, the ARMS error increased from a baseline of 2% to over 4%. EHR data cannot be reliably used to quantify SpO2 error. Caution should be used in interpreting prior manuscripts that rely on EHR data.

电子健康记录数据无法有效描述脉搏血氧仪的测量误差:一项模拟研究。
期刊文章中曾使用电子健康记录(EHR)中的大型数据集来证明脉搏氧饱和度(SpO2)测量中基于种族的不精确性。这些文章似乎没有认识到 SpO2 值随时间("偏差时间")变化的影响。本稿件旨在证明,由于这种可变性,电子病历数据不应被用来量化 SpO2 误差。利用 MIMIC-IV 波形数据集,从重症监护室收治的 198 名患者中抽取 SpO2 值作为参考样本。使用一组偏差时间模拟从电子病历数据中得出的误差。同时还模拟了实验室血氧饱和度测量结果,使三个模拟脉搏血氧仪设备的性能产生 2% 的平均均方根 (ARMS) 误差。然后进行分析,通过量化平均误差、误差的标准偏差和 ARMS 误差,再现向监管机构提交的医疗设备。此外,还生成了布兰-阿尔特曼图及其一致性界限。重复进行每项分析,以评估测量误差是否会受到偏差时间增加的影响。所有误差值都随时间偏差的对数线性增加。10 分钟时,ARMS 误差从 2% 的基线增加到 4% 以上。电子病历数据不能可靠地用于量化 SpO2 误差。在解释之前依赖于电子病历数据的手稿时应谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine. The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group. The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信