Intermittent vs Continuous Pulse Oximetry for Bronchiolitis Hospitalizations: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The decision to use pulse oximetry continuously or intermittently for patients admitted to the hospital with bronchiolitis varies among providers and institutions. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of intermittent vs continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in children hospitalized with bronchiolitis. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched until December 13, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of children younger than 2 years admitted with bronchiolitis that reported outcomes of continuous and intermittent pulse oximetry were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility. Study characteristics, study quality, and outcomes were extracted from each article. Studies were heterogeneous in design; therefore, a synthesis without meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Of 2299 citations identified, 187 were reviewed in full text, and 11 studies included. Two multicenter randomized control trials (RCTs) (n = 390) found that intermittent monitoring had similar length of stay (LOS) and supplemental oxygen duration, without increased intensive care unit transfer rates. One economic evaluation found similar health care and societal costs between monitoring strategies. One cohort study found increased alarm burden with continuous monitoring. Cross-sectional studies reported that continuous monitors were helpful and provided security to parents but were associated with increased parental anxiety and fatigue. Quality improvement studies of bundled interventions found reduced or similar LOS with intermittent monitoring, with no change in readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Based on RCTs, intermittent and continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in hospitalized children with bronchiolitis have similar outcomes of LOS, supplemental oxygen duration, safety, and cost-effectiveness.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".