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

Aaron Conway, Elizabeth Tipton, Wei Hong Liu, Zachary Conway, Kathleen Soalheira, Joanna Sutherland, James Fingleton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)157-163
Number of pages7
JournalThorax
Volume74
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Carbon Dioxide
Meta-Analysis
Population
Temperature
Technology
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • clinical epidemiology
  • respiratory measurement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Conway, Aaron ; Tipton, Elizabeth ; Liu, Wei Hong ; Conway, Zachary ; Soalheira, Kathleen ; Sutherland, Joanna ; Fingleton, James. / Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Thorax. 2019 ; Vol. 74, No. 2. pp. 157-163.
@article{9ee0dfd6aa294a34a02483e4878bae3f,
title = "Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
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.",
keywords = "clinical epidemiology, respiratory measurement",
author = "Aaron Conway and Elizabeth Tipton and Liu, {Wei Hong} and Zachary Conway and Kathleen Soalheira and Joanna Sutherland and James Fingleton",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "74",
pages = "157--163",
journal = "Thorax",
issn = "0040-6376",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

Conway, A, Tipton, E, Liu, WH, Conway, Z, Soalheira, K, Sutherland, J & Fingleton, J 2019, 'Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring: A systematic review and meta-analysis' Thorax, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 157-163. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466

Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Conway, Aaron; Tipton, Elizabeth; Liu, Wei Hong; Conway, Zachary; Soalheira, Kathleen; Sutherland, Joanna; Fingleton, James.

In: Thorax, Vol. 74, No. 2, 01.02.2019, p. 157-163.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Conway, Aaron

AU - Tipton, Elizabeth

AU - Liu, Wei Hong

AU - Conway, Zachary

AU - Soalheira, Kathleen

AU - Sutherland, Joanna

AU - Fingleton, James

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - clinical epidemiology

KW - respiratory measurement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053223670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053223670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466

DO - 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211466

M3 - Article

VL - 74

SP - 157

EP - 163

JO - Thorax

JF - Thorax

SN - 0040-6376

IS - 2

ER -