Talk:Pulse oximetry

I

I find the term 'red infrared' a bit misleading and unaccurate. I would rather use 'red + infrared', or, more appropiately, '(a beam) comprised of red and infrared wavelengths'. However I don't dare to edit it (I'm an electronic engineer -- i.e. a layman in medicine). --Biscay 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it to say "a light containing both red and infrared wavelengths". Thanks for mentioning this. --Kyoko 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kyoko, you did it really fast! Regards --Biscay 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and please don't be afraid to edit this article even if you don't have a medical background. Wikipedia benefits from having the input of many people with different abilities and areas of interest, and even an extra pair of eyes to spot errors in grammar or phrasing is helpful! --Kyoko 12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The wii vitality sensor is not the first time a pulse oximeter is used for entertainment purposes. To my knowledge the Wild Divine Project was the first, using such a sensor in its lightstone. 70.173.237.166 (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder why the its use in deep sea diving is ommited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.136.146 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wild Divine IR sensor only measures pulse rate, not SpO2 Oxygen saturation level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.249.159 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: The articles were merged

---

I think that these two articles cover enough of the same ground that the devices and their use can safely be merged into a single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, or at least move all the generic pulse oximerty information out of the pulse oximeter article and leave it as a description of the device per se. - Draeco (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, The two articles should cover different material. Whether or not they currently have the same information is immaterial. The question is: is there a difference in information that could or should be in the two separate articles. The answer is yes, one covering the technology, state of the art, physics, etc. and a second one outlining the current, historical, and future products that take advantage of these scientific concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.148.0.27 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree,Each article stands on its own, and contains valuable information that would be lost if a merge were to occur. A very emphatic disagree here. Ronk01 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that a merge cause us to lose any information at all? The point of a merge is to put all the information on one page, not to delete half of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, Pulse oximeter clearly deserves a page of its own as pulse oximetry is too broad a category for pulse oximeter to be merged. Jjeong12 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree' Because a pulse oximeter has the sole purpose of calculating oxigenation it is logical that of the blood by indirect observation. To reinforce this ABG's (arterial blood gases) are explained and how they are tested are both included in a single article. So for consistency the article here should explain Pulse Oximetry values how they are calculated, benefits and disadvantages of each and the method of testing in the same article. This reduces repetitive content between articles and gives a concise definition of the element tested, how the value is calculated, and the method of testing. wizbang_fl 04:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

(This merge proposal is more than a decade old. The merge already took place) Anastrophe (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Having two articles with almost the same name and subject is very confusing, and gives the impression that information is missing if you don't realize that it is in the other article. Dirac66 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreefor the merge. Whereas some day there may be enough contents to justify two articles, as of today 90% of the contents is shared between them both!--MarmotteiNoZ 00:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree To merging pulse oximeter to this article. They cover similar ground and both articles reference each other's content quite often so merging would remove quite a bit of duplicate content. So, I say go ahead with the merge.--Lead holder (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree to merging: there is still a large degree of overlap in content between the two articles, and hence a significant risk of divergence or inconsistency. Pulse oximeters would be a sensible section of a broader Pulse oximetry article. Docben (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advancement

I'm not knowledgeable enough to edit the main page, however I would like to bring this to the attention to someone who may choose to do so. Advancements in the device now allow for better measurement to help detect anemia. I'm not sure the specifics of the advancement, or the full reach the improvements have on its capabilities. Hopefully someone can update this to reflect that information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcclel (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Pediatric history

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/a-mothers-fight-for-newborn-hearts/ has some information about newborn screening that might be interesting as part of the history section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Screening for congenital heart disease

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60107-X - doesn't pick up all cases but being a blue baby is strongly indicative of having a congenital heart defect. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

poor explanation

This article seems to be about pulse oximetry. It never explains the actul working of a pulse oximeter. In general this is an unsuffcient article for an encyclopedia. It does not give any in depth information.94.214.169.166 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture correct?

Not sure if this is the correct way to comment here, but wanted to point out that the "correct position" photo (blue remote pulse oximetry sensor on patient finger tip) appears to be incorrect. Typically the lead wire is on the same side as the red/IR LEDs, which should be placed on TOP of the patient's finger tip above the fingernail. This link to the manufacturer documentation for a Masimo pulse oximter with remote sensor shows the correct positioning on page 1-5. This positioning is also evidenced in the topmost photo of the setup used for sleep monitoring (wrist oximeter with remote sensor). (I'm an RN and use pulse oximeters every day). - DawL VuDu DawL (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I second the comment above. The picture is incorrect. In all probes, when the probe is correctly positioned, the lead wire is on the nail side of the finger, running across the back of the hand (not the palm). Most probes have a fingernail impression in the sensor's plastic housing to show which side goes on the fingernail side of the finger. The photo with the blue sensor depicts incorrect placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol4929 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo

I don't know the term for hardware, but I know for software they call it "vaporware" when something is announced and then never becomes a real product. I am tempted to delete the information about oximeters for nintendo Wii video game console because it was announced in 2009 and here we are in 2015 and it never happened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DevRockinAZ (talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Pulse oximetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150501045123/http://www.kluweronline.com/art.pdf?issn=1387-1307&volume=17&page=93 to http://www.kluweronline.com/art.pdf?issn=1387-1307&volume=17&page=93
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150705090635/http://www.sleepreviewmag.com/issues/articles/2008-04_10.asp/ to http://www.sleepreviewmag.com/issues/articles/2008-04_10.asp
• Added archive https://www.maxtec.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MySignSDataSheet.b.pdf to https://www.maxtec.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/m800dataSheet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141012112938/http://www.aidara.fr/docs/confconsensus/RFEremplissage-SFAR2012.pdf to http://www.aidara.fr/docs/confconsensus/RFEremplissage-SFAR2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090408060421/http://e3.nintendo.com:80/pressrelease/ to http://e3.nintendo.com/pressrelease/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Review

doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0984-8 Critical Care JFW | T@lk 13:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pulse oximetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116151256/http://www.masimo.com/Nellcorfiction/PDF_FF/History%20of%20Pulse%20Oximetry.pdf to http://www.masimo.com/Nellcorfiction/PDF_FF/History%20of%20Pulse%20Oximetry.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224221820/http://www.frca.co.uk/article.aspx?articleid=332 to http://www.frca.co.uk/article.aspx?articleid=332
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318054934/http://www.oximetry.org:80/pulseox/principles.htm to http://www.oximetry.org/pulseox/principles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

SpO2 abbreviation - peripheral?

Does the p in SpO2 really stand for peripheral? I would have guessed it stood for 'pulse oximeter'. I would assume SaO2 is typically measured (or at least calculated) from peripheral arterial blood on ABGs, which makes the "peripheral" designation of SpO2 curious. Maybe this term is from the old 1970s non-"pulse" oximeters that worked on fingers in an attempt to estimate the SaO2. Mauvila (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please justify I/IR requirement.

Article Location:
Section: Function
Paragraph excerpt: "By subtracting the minimum transmitted light from the peak transmitted light in each wavelength, the effects of other tissues are corrected for.[43]"

Reference "[43]" = ""Pulse Oximetry". Oximetry.org. 2002-09-10. Archived from the original on 2015-03-18. Retrieved 2015-04-02."

Does not explain why more than one frequency is required.
Does not explain that if only one frequency were available, which would be the preferable for obtaining the same data, or it is not possible to even guess a conclusion with only one frequency.
Does not explain history on how both frequencies were chosen.
Does not explain the reasoning behind the relationship of Red and Infrared frequencies.

Gedium (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Lack of citation

Lack of citation in 3.1 Advantages. " Portable pulse oximeters are also useful for mountain climbers and athletes whose oxygen levels may decrease at high altitudes or with exercise. Some portable pulse oximeters employ software that charts a patient's blood oxygen and pulse, serving as a reminder to check blood oxygen levels." wizbang_fl 04:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatibi (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 September 2020 UTC (UTC)

Does it genuinely need a cite? I think this falls into the realm of 'the sky is blue'. Anastrophe (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"Systemic Racism"

A claim from bostonreview.net has been added that Pulse oximeters may contribute to "systemic racism" because of errors induced by skin color. Bostonreview.net labels itself as 'political and literary forum'. I question whether this is a reliable source for a science/medical article. The source appears to be an opinion piece, synthesizing a claim that isn't patent in its own sources. Pulse oximeters demonstrate a color bias, not a racist bias. It strikes me as a highly dubious bit of political theater being introduced into an otherwise well documented article. Do pulse oximeters potentially produce erroneous results for people with 'non-white' skin color? Probably so. That's a technical issue that needs to be fixed, not a political issue. It becomes a political issue only if we force that value judgement onto device that has no political bias itself. The best that might be said is that the scientists who created pulse oximeters failed to take into account skin color. That's a "duh" and an "oops", not evidence of white supremacy or whatever we choose to characterize it.

Yes, this is a rant. Politicizing a benign device that has a shortcoming - serious, as the case can be made - isn't helpful. It's a technical issue that can be addressed by application of technical fixes. No more, no less. Anastrophe (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

So... despite hedging about the source (written by a professor of anthropology at MIT, by the way, and we can of course add content and citations from the medical journal articles she linked to) you're acknowledging that there's a problem with pulse oximeter devices measuring the SpO₂ of people with darker skin, a problem which based on the dates in this article has existed for at least half a century, but you want to make sure this article doesn't mention any of the broader consequences of that? Or you want to make sure that those consequences aren't explicitly connected to any kind of racism in the text of the article? What are you asking for with your self-described rant?

Even if this article were about pulse oximeter devices specifically—which it's not, it's about the method of pulse oximetry in general—and even if there were some Wikipedia policy or guideline saying non-medical aspects of a topic should be segregated from articles——which there isn't, in fact the WP:PSGMED intro guide to writing medical articles suggests a "Society and culture" section for most subtypes of articles, including medical device articles btw—racism is a technical aspect of medicine: for example its MeSH code is D063505.

What you're proposing is something like saying the article on PTSD should not mention veterans, because veterans' issues is a political subject rather than a technical or medical subject. Consider that editors having a reaction like this to the mention of racism, and acting on an urge to put something about their reaction down in writing right away, is the reason why there's enough secondary sourcing for Wikipedia to have a racial bias on Wikipedia article. Or that this kind of thing is one reason why, as the Boston Review article points out, we're in the middle of a respiratory disease pandemic where the death rates of people with darker skin are much higher than the death rate of whites, to the tune of tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone.

"Oops," as you say. But let's not sully the good reputation of a "benign device," that's what's really important here, and let's avoid documenting any involvement with anything that might "force [a] value judgement", Heaven forfend. It's interesting that you equate systemic racism—the phenomenon that this kind of "oops" happens again and again and again in all sectors of society and, if redressed at all, is redressed with a half-century-plus lag time or in some other less urgent or thorough manner than other problems—as being identical to white supremacy "or whatever," but that's all you.

Look, if it makes you feel more coolly technical and apolitical, think of it the way that in the twentieth century engineers were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that things like risk management and system dynamics and reliability analysis are essential to design. Racism is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge of medical device engineering in the twenty-first century. Except that unfortunately, whereas no one died when the bridge shook itself apart, systemic racism causes death and suffering on a vast scale. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 01:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, I must yield the crown for rants.

The devices may have a bias in readings affected by skin color. Ascribing it to race is nonsense. Asians are a different race from Northern Europeans, yet very large populations of Asians have skin color indistinguishable from "white" people. If there is a racial bias, then PulseOx for Asians would show the same errors, which clearly is nonsensical. Skin Color "bias" is not Racial bias, not when we're talking about a medical device. I haven't read the source studies, but I'd be curious if they bothered to check the results for heavily tanned Scandinavians. I'd bet that they'd show the same errors. Would we attribute that to racism?

I have not suggested that this problem should not be addressed. It certainly should. Wikipedia isn't prescriptive. We report what experts have found, we don't interpret the results.

There's so much hyperbole, conflation, and ascribing of motive in the response that I can't begin to respond to it - nor will I. It's just baiting, which is uncivil and unhelpful.

"Research has shown that error rates in common pulse oximeter devices may be higher for people with dark skin color." That's all that needs to be said, along with proper sourcing to the studies themselves. The rest is supposition. Anastrophe (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding the Boston Review article, nor the sentence I added to this Wikipedia article, if you think that the claim being made here is that a pulse oximeter somehow detects race and would distinguish Asians and white people with the same skin tone.

I'm not sure what you feel you're being baited into doing if it's things like me providing you with the MeSH ID for looking up open-access full-text medical journal articles about racism on PubMed Central that you regard as a baiting maneuver you "can't begin to respond to." If you haven't read any of the further sources on the matter how do you know you can declare as "supposition" and remove the statement, sourced to the Boston Review article, that higher error rates in pulse oximetry for people with dark skin raises concerns about compounding systemic racism?

Sure, maybe all the other verifiable, reliable sources out there are saying that medical devices which produce higher error rates for black people can raise no concerns whatsoever when it comes to the extremely-well-documented racial disparities in medical outcomes in the U.S. health care system and elsewhere. But if you don't look for any other sources and instead pick the one fact you personally find acceptable out of a source written by an MIT anthropology professor that talks about racism in its entirety, that is the complete diametric opposite of "We report what experts have found, we don't interpret the results." Not only are you heavily interpreting the Boston Review article to throw away everything about racism in it on your own cognizance, you are doing so by forming your own assumptions about what you will find in other sources and saying you'd bet you already know what they say. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 03:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The word "you" or "you're" or "your" appears twenty times in your comment. Please focus on content, not the editor.. The assumptions made about what I may or may not think are overbearing and uncivil. I raised my concern above. Please note that I didn't simply revert the edit, as I felt that discussion would be helpful. I look forward to other editors participating, hopefully in less confrontational and more collegial manner. Anastrophe (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It's almost like you're trying to characterize my comments and edits, use passive voice to say content "has been added" which is "political theater" that "force[s] that value judgement" (about racism which, again, is a thoroughly-documented topic in medical science and many other disciplines, not an airy abstract philosophical notion or something from the outskirts of political theory) as though you can't just check who wrote it so you didn't know, and call what I'm saying here a rant and hyperbole and conflation and baiting that you're simply above responding to at all, while claiming I mustn't characterize your own comments at all. Nah, it's a bit too late to take the high road. Is it quantitatively focusing on another's editor's comments which is supposed to suddenly be all that's okay now, starting with this last comment? So coolly technical and sang-froid, the word counts. Maybe you can compute a Flesch–Kincaid readability score for what I've said above next.

Coming back to this after a week I see that your "focus on content" and supposedly-helpful discussion has still not resulted in you doing any research to contribute cited edits to the article or address my points about pulse oximetry and its relationship to national medical systems here. So go ahead and continue with whatever it is you're doing in this talk page but I'm going to go do research and write encyclopedia content. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 00:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Your behavior continues to be uncivil and engaging in hostile personal attacks. Please read or re-read WP:CIVIL. I haven't responded in kind, and I would ask you to please stop making personal attacks. Civility is a core value of Wikipedia. I'm not obligated to accept this behavior, and continuing to engage would be tacit acceptance. Peace be upon you. Anastrophe (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Systematic Racism? How is physics racism? How to measure more accurately from black people or dark skinned animals?

Wikipedia now says:

"Research has suggested that error rates in common pulse oximeter devices may be higher for adults with dark skin color, leading to claims of encoding systemic racism in countries with multi-racial populations such as the United States".

If this is racism, why black scientists haven't created any solution to this?

91.159.184.121 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Signals Data and Equity

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 13 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rheatandon (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wu ib (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Why no Hewlett-Packard?

I’m curious why in the history section no mention is made of HP’s pulse oximeters which were quite common (if not dominant and the “gold standard” for comparison in the 70s and 80s). There were other mfrs, too.

Specifically, the HP 47201A, described here:

If you go out to PubMed, you’ll find plenty of articles comparing the accuracy of various PulseOxes, and the HP is almost always in there. West, et al., “Dynamic in vivo response characteristics of three oximeters: Hewlett-Packard 47201A, Biox III, and Nellcor N-100” doi:%2010.1093/sleep/10.3.263

Seems like this article was sort of crafted from a recent summary somewhere else.

W6rmk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

References