Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Conway, A., Tipton, E., Liu, W., Conway, Z., Soalheira, K., Sutherland, J., & Fingleton, J. Thorax, 74(2):157–163, February, 2019. Number: 2

Paper doi abstract bibtex

Background Transcutaneous carbon dioxide (TcCO 2 ) monitoring is a non-invasive alternative to arterial blood sampling. The aim of this review was to determine the accuracy and precision of TcCO 2 measurements. Methods Medline and EMBASE (2000–2016) were searched for studies that reported on a measurement of PaCO 2 that coincided with a measurement of TcCO 2 . Study selection and quality assessment (using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2)) were performed independently. The Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation approach was used to summarise the strength of the body of evidence. Pooled estimates of the mean bias between TcCO 2 and PaCO 2 and limits of agreement with outer 95% CIs (termed population limits of agreement) were calculated. Results The mean bias was −0.1 mm Hg and the population limits of agreement were −15 to 15 mm Hg for 7021 paired measurements taken from 2817 participants in 73 studies, which was outside of the clinically acceptable range (7.5 mm Hg). The lowest PaCO 2 reported in the studies was 18 mm Hg and the highest was 103 mm Hg. The major sources of inconsistency were sensor location and temperature. The population limits of agreement were within the clinically acceptable range across 3974 paired measurements from 1786 participants in 44 studies that applied the sensor to the earlobe using the TOSCA and Sentec devices (−6 to 6 mm Hg). Conclusion There are substantial differences between TcCO 2 and PaCO 2 depending on the context in which this technology is used. TcCO 2 sensors should preferentially be applied to the earlobe and users should consider setting the temperature of the sensor higher than 42°C when monitoring at other sites. Systematic review registration number PROSPERO; CRD42017057450.

@article{conway_accuracy_2019,
	title = {Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis},
	volume = {74},
	issn = {0040-6376, 1468-3296},
	shorttitle = {Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring},
	url = {http://thorax.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466},
	doi = {10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466},
	abstract = {Background
              
                Transcutaneous carbon dioxide (TcCO
                2
                ) monitoring is a non-invasive alternative to arterial blood sampling. The aim of this review was to determine the accuracy and precision of TcCO
                2
                measurements.
              
            
            
              Methods
              
                Medline and EMBASE (2000–2016) were searched for studies that reported on a measurement of PaCO
                2
                that coincided with a measurement of TcCO
                2
                . Study selection and quality assessment (using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2)) were performed independently. The Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation approach was used to summarise the strength of the body of evidence. Pooled estimates of the mean bias between TcCO
                2
                and PaCO
                2
                and limits of agreement with outer 95\% CIs (termed population limits of agreement) were calculated.
              
            
            
              Results
              
                The mean bias was −0.1 mm Hg and the population limits of agreement were −15 to 15 mm Hg for 7021 paired measurements taken from 2817 participants in 73 studies, which was outside of the clinically acceptable range (7.5 mm Hg). The lowest PaCO
                2
                reported in the studies was 18 mm Hg and the highest was 103 mm Hg. The major sources of inconsistency were sensor location and temperature. The population limits of agreement were within the clinically acceptable range across 3974 paired measurements from 1786 participants in 44 studies that applied the sensor to the earlobe using the TOSCA and Sentec devices (−6 to 6 mm Hg).
              
            
            
              Conclusion
              
                There are substantial differences between TcCO
                2
                and PaCO
                2
                depending on the context in which this technology is used. TcCO
                2
                sensors should preferentially be applied to the earlobe and users should consider setting the temperature of the sensor higher than 42°C when monitoring at other sites.
              
            
            
              Systematic review registration number
              PROSPERO; CRD42017057450.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2020-08-23},
	journal = {Thorax},
	author = {Conway, Aaron and Tipton, Elizabeth and Liu, Wei-Hong and Conway, Zachary and Soalheira, Kathleen and Sutherland, Joanna and Fingleton, James},
	month = feb,
	year = {2019},
	note = {Number: 2},
	pages = {157--163},
}

Downloads: 0

{"_id":"va4XwmheAmzE3qtXf","bibbaseid":"conway-tipton-liu-conway-soalheira-sutherland-fingleton-accuracyandprecisionoftranscutaneouscarbondioxidemonitoringasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis-2019","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Conway, A.","Tipton, E.","Liu, W.","Conway, Z.","Soalheira, K.","Sutherland, J.","Fingleton, J."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"74","issn":"0040-6376, 1468-3296","shorttitle":"Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring","url":"http://thorax.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466","doi":"10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466","abstract":"Background Transcutaneous carbon dioxide (TcCO 2 ) monitoring is a non-invasive alternative to arterial blood sampling. The aim of this review was to determine the accuracy and precision of TcCO 2 measurements. Methods Medline and EMBASE (2000–2016) were searched for studies that reported on a measurement of PaCO 2 that coincided with a measurement of TcCO 2 . Study selection and quality assessment (using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2)) were performed independently. The Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation approach was used to summarise the strength of the body of evidence. Pooled estimates of the mean bias between TcCO 2 and PaCO 2 and limits of agreement with outer 95% CIs (termed population limits of agreement) were calculated. Results The mean bias was −0.1 mm Hg and the population limits of agreement were −15 to 15 mm Hg for 7021 paired measurements taken from 2817 participants in 73 studies, which was outside of the clinically acceptable range (7.5 mm Hg). The lowest PaCO 2 reported in the studies was 18 mm Hg and the highest was 103 mm Hg. The major sources of inconsistency were sensor location and temperature. The population limits of agreement were within the clinically acceptable range across 3974 paired measurements from 1786 participants in 44 studies that applied the sensor to the earlobe using the TOSCA and Sentec devices (−6 to 6 mm Hg). Conclusion There are substantial differences between TcCO 2 and PaCO 2 depending on the context in which this technology is used. TcCO 2 sensors should preferentially be applied to the earlobe and users should consider setting the temperature of the sensor higher than 42°C when monitoring at other sites. Systematic review registration number PROSPERO; CRD42017057450.","language":"en","number":"2","urldate":"2020-08-23","journal":"Thorax","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Conway"],"firstnames":["Aaron"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Tipton"],"firstnames":["Elizabeth"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Liu"],"firstnames":["Wei-Hong"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Conway"],"firstnames":["Zachary"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Soalheira"],"firstnames":["Kathleen"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sutherland"],"firstnames":["Joanna"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fingleton"],"firstnames":["James"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"February","year":"2019","note":"Number: 2","pages":"157–163","bibtex":"@article{conway_accuracy_2019,\n\ttitle = {Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis},\n\tvolume = {74},\n\tissn = {0040-6376, 1468-3296},\n\tshorttitle = {Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring},\n\turl = {http://thorax.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466},\n\tabstract = {Background\n \n Transcutaneous carbon dioxide (TcCO\n 2\n ) monitoring is a non-invasive alternative to arterial blood sampling. The aim of this review was to determine the accuracy and precision of TcCO\n 2\n measurements.\n \n \n \n Methods\n \n Medline and EMBASE (2000–2016) were searched for studies that reported on a measurement of PaCO\n 2\n that coincided with a measurement of TcCO\n 2\n . Study selection and quality assessment (using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2)) were performed independently. The Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation approach was used to summarise the strength of the body of evidence. Pooled estimates of the mean bias between TcCO\n 2\n and PaCO\n 2\n and limits of agreement with outer 95\\% CIs (termed population limits of agreement) were calculated.\n \n \n \n Results\n \n The mean bias was −0.1 mm Hg and the population limits of agreement were −15 to 15 mm Hg for 7021 paired measurements taken from 2817 participants in 73 studies, which was outside of the clinically acceptable range (7.5 mm Hg). The lowest PaCO\n 2\n reported in the studies was 18 mm Hg and the highest was 103 mm Hg. The major sources of inconsistency were sensor location and temperature. The population limits of agreement were within the clinically acceptable range across 3974 paired measurements from 1786 participants in 44 studies that applied the sensor to the earlobe using the TOSCA and Sentec devices (−6 to 6 mm Hg).\n \n \n \n Conclusion\n \n There are substantial differences between TcCO\n 2\n and PaCO\n 2\n depending on the context in which this technology is used. TcCO\n 2\n sensors should preferentially be applied to the earlobe and users should consider setting the temperature of the sensor higher than 42°C when monitoring at other sites.\n \n \n \n Systematic review registration number\n PROSPERO; CRD42017057450.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2020-08-23},\n\tjournal = {Thorax},\n\tauthor = {Conway, Aaron and Tipton, Elizabeth and Liu, Wei-Hong and Conway, Zachary and Soalheira, Kathleen and Sutherland, Joanna and Fingleton, James},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tnote = {Number: 2},\n\tpages = {157--163},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Conway, A.","Tipton, E.","Liu, W.","Conway, Z.","Soalheira, K.","Sutherland, J.","Fingleton, J."],"key":"conway_accuracy_2019","id":"conway_accuracy_2019","bibbaseid":"conway-tipton-liu-conway-soalheira-sutherland-fingleton-accuracyandprecisionoftranscutaneouscarbondioxidemonitoringasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis-2019","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://thorax.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","creationDate":"2019-06-09T22:34:08.045Z","downloads":0,"keywords":[],"search_terms":["accuracy","precision","transcutaneous","carbon","dioxide","monitoring","systematic","review","meta","analysis","conway","tipton","liu","conway","soalheira","sutherland","fingleton"],"title":"Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis","year":2019,"biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/6607533/collections/TUNIQEGB/items?key=hSjrOPQRRHHWY81SKs6CEz45&format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["7ab23HFLFxhHickA4","2gjE2Mtkr96KKZopW","uhiPBkWgQntJyBwoZ","4LCzTDwLuFM5kYXuP","hRAfAvmcA3uAsD4SS","ypyMYFZsbnJQFkJgd","SeuYQYtZzv93hK9DB","ya2CyA73rpZseyrZ8","mxqxyoTcgN4SAfkJ8"]}