Abstract
Importance Pulse oximetry, a ubiquitous vital sign in modern medicine, has inequitable accuracy that disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic patients, with associated increases in mortality, organ dysfunction, and oxygen therapy. Although the root cause of these clinical performance discrepancies is believed to be skin tone, previous retrospective studies used self-reported race or ethnicity as a surrogate for skin tone.
Objective To determine the utility of objectively measured skin tone in explaining pulse oximetry discrepancies.
Design, Setting, and Participants Admitted hospital patients at Duke University Hospital were eligible for this prospective cohort study if they had pulse oximetry recorded up to 5 minutes prior to arterial blood gas (ABG) measurements. Skin tone was measured across sixteen body locations using administered visual scales (Fitzpatrick Skin Type, Monk Skin Tone, and Von Luschan), reflectance colorimetry (Delfin SkinColorCatch [L*, individual typology angle {ITA}, Melanin Index {MI}]), and reflectance spectrophotometry (Konica Minolta CM-700D [L*], Variable Spectro 1 [L*]).
Main Outcomes and Measures Mean directional bias, variability of bias, and accuracy root mean square (ARMS), comparing pulse oximetry and ABG measurements. Linear mixed-effects models were fitted to estimate mean directional bias while accounting for clinical confounders.
Results 128 patients (57 Black, 56 White) with 521 ABG–pulse oximetry pairs were recruited, none with hidden hypoxemia. Skin tone data was prospectively collected using 6 measurement methods, generating 8 measurements. The collected skin tone measurements were shown to yield differences among each other and overlap with self-reported racial groups, suggesting that skin tone could potentially provide information beyond self-reported race. Among the eight skin tone measurements in this study, and compared to self-reported race, the Monk Scale had the best relationship with differences in pulse oximetry bias (point estimate: −2.40%; 95% CI: −4.32%, - 0.48%; p=0.01) when comparing patients with lighter and dark skin tones.
Conclusions and relevance We found clinical performance differences in pulse oximetry, especially in darker skin tones. Additional studies are needed to determine the relative contributions of skin tone measures and other potential factors on pulse oximetry discrepancies.
Question Can skin tone capture information beyond race to help explain pulse oximetry discrepancies?
Findings Pulse oximetry bias across races seems to persist across skin tone when measured using administered visual scales, reflectance colorimetry, or reflectance spectrophotometry. Among the eight skin tone measurements in this study, and compared to self-reported race, the Monk Scale seemed to best correlate with pulse oximetry bias when comparing patients with lighter and dark skin tones.
Meaning Compared to self-reported race, skin tone is associated with some pulse oximetry discrepancies; we recommend using skin tone to assist the regulatory clearance of equitable pulse oximeters.
Competing Interest Statement
AIW holds equity and management roles in Ataia Medical.
Funding Statement
AIW is supported by the Duke CTSI by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health under UL1TR002553 and REACH Equity under the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) of the National Institutes of Health under U54MD012530. JWG is a 2022 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program and declares support from RSNA Health Disparities grant (#EIHD2204), Lacuna Fund (#67), Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and NIH (NIBIB) MIDRC grant under contracts 75N92020C00008 and 75N92020C00021
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Duke Health IRB under Pro00110842.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* co-first authors
Conflicts of interest AIW holds equity and management roles in Ataia Medical.
Funding AIW is supported by the Duke CTSI by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health under UL1TR002553 and REACH Equity under the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) of the National Institutes of Health under U54MD012530.
JWG is a 2022 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program and declares support from RSNA Health Disparities grant (#EIHD2204), Lacuna Fund (#67), Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and NIH (NIBIB) MIDRC grant under contracts 75N92020C00008 and 75N92020C00021
Data Availability
An IRB revision is underway to evaluate this possibility but legal counsel has suggested that re-consent may be necessary for submission to a public access-controlled archive.
