Arterial Versus Venous Blood Gas Analysis Comparisons, Appropriateness, and Alternatives in Different Acid/Base Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arterial blood gases (ABGs) are routinely done in critical clinical settings to ascertain acid-base status. Due to difficulties and the potential side effects following arterial blood sampling, much research has been done to find the possibility of using venous samples as an alternative. However, this comparison needs to be evaluated in various contexts. Hence, this systematic review aims to explore the differences, appropriateness, and alternatives of arterial versus venous blood gas (VBG) analysis in different acid-base states. A comprehensive literature search was conducted through electronic databases using the terms "ABG," "VBG," "Arterial Blood Gas," "Venous Blood Gas," and "Gas analysis." Studies' qualities were assessed by using Newcastle - Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Of 531 articles, 22 were included in the study after title, abstract, and full-text screening. Based on the Newcastle - Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, 23% of the studies had good quality (score ≥ 7), 77% fair quality (score 2-6), and none of the studies had poor quality (score ≤ 1). Moreover, 22.5% of the included articles found a strong correlation between ABG and VBG. 73% compared arterial and VBG parameters among patients with any clinical contexts, 22.5% in respiratory diseases, and 4.5% in metabolic conditions, and their results had a significant disparity. There was a considerable discrepancy among authors about the appropriateness and utilization of VBG as an alternative to ABG. Our findings suggest that those studies did not consider physiological differences between venous and arterial blood values and obviated the significance of sampling procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".