Talk:Pulse oximeter

The

The move

who invented

How accurate are the inexpensive fingertip monitors?

Unverified Claim

Pulse oximetry is the most important safety development in anesthesia.

I have no diea where to put this from. Any ideas? --Animeronin 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging "pulse oximetry" into "pulse oximeter", discussing both topics in one article. There is enough overlap in talking about "the measuring instrument" and "the process of measuring" that I don't see the need for separate articles. Do we have separate articles for thermometry and thermometer? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest pulse oximeter be merged into pulse oximetry... this makes more sense, since the main topic should be the main article, and there should / could be a sub section for a particular tool used for pulse oximetry. purpleidea (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for the merge --MarmotteiNoZ 00:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please exaplin acronyms such as

COPD?

PVI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.25 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does this discuss the pulse measuring capabilities of the device, nor the function of the series of diodes that pulse with each beat. I have an arrythmia caused by drug interaction and the measurement of the pulse and the strange readings on the series of diodes make sense to me. I know when I have chest pain the series of diodes does not beat regularly in succession, maybe getting one bar or two. But as the arrythmia has improved after drug withdrawal it seems to light up the diodes in a more regular succession of more lights. What does this measure? What is the significance of these diodes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.88.181 (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly check out WP:OWN, WP:CON and WP:JDLI. We really don't have to go into this, we've already had the three reverts that pretty much make us both incredibly sad people. I am on sick leave so have a shit load of time to go around editing wikipedia articles.
So, how about I state my case:

1. There are many different kinds of home-use, clinic and hospital use oximeters, fingertip ones are pretty much limited for home and children's use. Wrist mounted ones are fairly common (At least 7 makers with a few models each, google is your friend here). They have the advantage in that they don't fall off as easily during sleep study or movement in general.
2. If we are going to have images showing the item in question perhaps we should show different ones. I would be all for showing a couple of historic models if there are any available.
3. This is a small edit, it is not that significant but it does add more to the article than the previous image that was here and certainty more than countless reverts. (Your only contributions to this article over the last year have been reverts BTW).

TTFN. --UusiAjaja (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to discussing content, see WP:CIVIL. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) You should self revert your last edit to the article. You currently have 4 reverts within 24 hours: you replaced an existing picture with your own (aka a revert - undoing something a previous editor did), and then you reverted me three times when I removed your picture.

I removed your picture because it does not add much to the article. The article does not need pictures of slight variations; all three pix are finger cuffs instruments. Your picture shows more hand and trees than the instrument itself. The picture is poorly lit (no fill-in flash) and has poor composition. The readout is also small. It's your own picture, so there's a potential WP:COI about you judging the merits of the picture.

The article could use illustrations of how the instrument works: for example, light path, dual wavelengths, and absorbtion plots.

Glrx (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit warring needs to stop. It's silly and pointless.

I don't have strong opinions about the images, but in general I'd rather see more than one, and, for medical devices, I'd rather see pictures by our users than images arranged by manufacturer's marketing departments, even if the users' images have minor technical problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't see what is wrong with the image, it's actually quite good quality. Glrx, you didn't really need to revert to begin with, you could have just taken it up with the user on his talk page and left the image in until discussion reached a closure. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the issue are quite simple:

1. There are more than just finger oximeters and I believe that the article should show what is available. It should probably also show some historical models. There must be older devices out there that have been photographed. I had a quick gander on flickr for licence suitable ones but nothing interesting came up.
2. The stock photos used previously could be from anywhere and indeed one of the images of a finger mounted model is a crop of an image removed for copyright violation and the other one is on an OTRS ticket. The image I used is PD and will of course always be.
3. The reasons given by the reverting user changed with each argument that I made against the reversions. It seemed to me that the user simply wanted some control over the article. This was reinforced by the fact that the only revisions made to this article by said user in the last year were reversions.

Anyway this is pretty much what I said when I added this section yesterday. Sorry about the edit warring, you are right it is very silly indeed. Sometimes one just feels irked into being a dick. My point is made and I'm happy whatever decision is made now :) --UusiAjaja (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]