Article Text

PDF
Original article
Accuracy and precision of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Aaron Conway1,2,3,
  2. Elizabeth Tipton4,
  3. Wei-Hong Liu1,
  4. Zachary Conway5,
  5. Kathleen Soalheira1,
  6. Joanna Sutherland6,
  7. James Fingleton7
  1. 1Institution of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, USA
  5. 5School of Exercise Sciences, AustralianCatholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  6. 6Coffs Harbour Health Campus and Rural Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia
  7. 7Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Dr Aaron Conway, Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ; aaron.conway{at}utoronto.ca

Abstract

Background Transcutaneous carbon dioxide (TcCO2) monitoring is a non-invasive alternative to arterial blood sampling. The aim of this review was to determine the accuracy and precision of TcCO2 measurements.

Methods Medline and EMBASE (2000–2016) were searched for studies that reported on a measurement of PaCO2 that coincided with a measurement of TcCO2. 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 TcCO2 and PaCO2 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 PaCO2 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 TcCO2 and PaCO2 depending on the context in which this technology is used. TcCO2 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.

  • respiratory measurement
  • clinical epidemiology

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors have agreed on the final version. AC: study design, data extraction and quality assessment, statistical analysis, drafted the manuscript, and is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. ET: study design, statistical analysis, revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. W-HL: study design, data extraction and quality assessment, revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. ZC: data extraction and quality assessment, revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. KS: data extraction and quality assessment, revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. JS: study design, data extraction and quality assessment, revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. JF: study design, data extraction and quality assessment, revised the manuscript for important intellectual content.

  • Funding Department of Health, Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1091657).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement All data used for the study are available as online supplementary information and at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6244058.v2.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.