Assessment of Continuous Pulse Oximetry Monitoring in Infants With Bronchiolitis in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Bronchiolitis guidelines recommend intermittent pulse oximetry monitoring for stable infants. Continuous pulse oximetry can lead to harm for some infants with bronchiolitis but is still frequently used in emergency departments (EDs) for infants who do not require oxygen supplementation. Measuring continuous pulse oximetry use from medical charts can be challenging. This study aimed to (1) develop a feasible method for documenting the use of continuous pulse oximetry in infants with bronchiolitis and (2) explore factors influencing its use in this population. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional observational study in a tertiary pediatric ED. Infants 60 days and 12 months old with possible bronchiolitis and not requiring oxygen were included. The patients were recruited from January 11 to March 21, 2023. Research assistants directly observed the use of pulse oximetry monitors. The primary outcome was the proportion of infants placed on continuous pulse oximetry. The secondary outcomes included disease severity, admission, unplanned return visits, the use of supplemental oxygen, and the need for investigations and interventions. Results Eighteen infants were included in this study, with six (33.3%) placed on continuous pulse oximetry. The median disease severity score was similar between infants who were continuously monitored (6.5 (IQR 5.3, 10.8)) and those in the intermittent pulse oximetry group (4.5 (IQR 2, 9)). Infants in the continuous pulse oximetry group underwent more investigations and interventions than those in the intermittent pulse oximetry group: chest radiograph and bloodwork in 50% versus 8.3%, antibiotics in 33.3% versus 8.3%, bronchodilators in 33.3% versus 16.7%, and steroids in 16.7% versus 0%. In the continuous pulse oximetry group, four infants (66.7%), all of whom were placed on supplemental oxygen, were admitted, compared to one infant (8.3%) in the intermittent pulse oximetry group. Conclusion The decision to use continuous pulse oximetry may be influenced by provider characteristics. Objective parameters should be developed to guide its application and minimize potential harms associated with it.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".