How 'bout that new law suit ladies

How does he explain this away? Or does he?

 

The dude contradicks himself like that ALL THE TIME!!! Does he not realize it, or does he think we are all stupid?

 

Lessons from a disgraced dingbat: when much of what you say is bs
eventually it's tough to remember what's what.
Sorry that's the deal.

 

OMG? Bet there's not another blog in the world with over 2,000 negative comments on it directed at a single company. a small company no less wtf!
Far back as I read no nice reviews.

 

Vindicating to read about their troubles

 

Unfortunately it isn't illegal to be unethical

 

Some things I saw going on there were both!

 

so Masi has rightfully protected their IP's who gives a £#|+?!
It's their honor & disgrace I want to see cleaned up. They still have much on the line
in that respect. They appealing earlier verdicts that make them look so dirty!

 

Is it weird that a member of Masimo’s Board of Directors has also been serving as the company’s “acting” Chief Medical Officer? http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/masi/insiders?pid=13471838

Since predecessor Dr. Michael O’Reilley resigned from the company in early 2013, veteran Masimo Director Dr. Steven J. Barker has been filling in as “Acting CMO.” Among other CMO responsibilities Dr. Barker is challenging select research/press that is critical of Masimo technologies, i.e. SpHb. I’m troubled by the apparent conflict of interest, especially Dr. Barker’s articles appearing in scientific journals that lack full disclosure of his role as Director of the company.

For example….
A study titled "Noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring: how accurate is enough?" (by Dr. Rice, et al) appeared in the journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia in Oct 2013
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23842195). In March 2015 Dr. Steven Barker and colleagues responded to the study and two others by the same authors in March 2015 (Anesthesia and Analgesia) without acknowledging Dr. Barker’s long standing position on Masimo’s Board of Directors.
See Dr. Barker’s et al response titled, "Continuous Noninvasive Hemoglobin Monitoring: A Measured Response to a Critical Review” http://www.masimo.com/pdf/clinical/hemoglobin/Barker%20Anesth%20Analg%202015%20abs.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25746056/
Authors: Steven J. Barker, PhD, MD, Aryeh Shander, MD, and Michael A. Ramsay, MD

The whole arrangement seems stinky to me. I don’t like it, do you? At the very least there should be more transparency re: the unique dual relationship between the author and SpHb's manufacturer. After all, Masimo CEO Joe Kiani teaches us at nauseum that "Transparency can be a powerful disinfectant to misaligned incentives."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-szczerba/reengineering-healthcare-_b_5999200.html

 

Wouldn't you have nice things to say about Sphb too if you owned tons of company stock and had bonus checks the size of Kansas at stake?

 

Hey man, if you can't achieve quality,
the perception of quality is a close second!

 

Perceived clinical utilization is the holy cupcake

 

I forget....Does "quality" include things like precision, accuracy, and reliability? My employment at Masimo seems to have skewed my understanding and value of those things. I'm just a confused dope anymore.

 

Secret to joker's success tip #14:
No need to improve the quality of your product if you can lower people's expectations of your your product instead. Redefine quality to include just about anything. If the quality of your product is simply unable to meet their rock-bottom expectations, here's what you do: convince them of a need for poor quality products.

 

In other words Please give poor quality a chance!
As in any product group or industry, it has it's rightful place in patient care too, like down in the weeds. With no demand in sight for poor quality in this market group, you'll need to invent one. Being a farmer won't hack it. Nor a hunter. To make it on this playground you've got to be a bone-thirsty gladiator and a magician-sculptor....on crack....with no morals.
Let's see what you got!

 

I don't get where sphb fits into the picture. It's not cleared to stand alone as diagnostic. Why supplement accurate lab tHb data with less accurate, non-diagnostic sphb data?

 

Bad data is bad data is bad cake batter
Get rid of it

 

Before you jump on any Masimo offers that sound too exciting & lucrative to be true, and before you dismiss the Rice, et al study for being "so 2013 ago" (or because the red machine says "sphb sensors have come a long long way since then") you might want to look over a few of these pearls below. They're as current as can be, and better yet....100% free & clear of MASI's flowery spin.

June 2015
Current Opinion in Critical Care
“Continuous noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring: ready for prime time?”
Suehiro K, Joosten A, Alexander B, Cannesson M
Conclusion: “A recent meta-analysis has shown a small mean difference but wide limits of agreement between non-invasive hemoglobin (SpHb) and laboratory measurements (tHb), indicating that caution should be used by physicians when making clinical decisions based on this device. (SpHb) measurements may currently be considered to be a supplemental tool for monitoring trends in tHbconcentration, but are not currently developed enough to replace an invasive approach. Moreover, further studies are still required before implementing (SpHb) in the clinical decision-making process. Specifically, no studies have demonstrated that this technology improves clinical outcomes or patient safety.”

May 2015:
Anesthesia and Intensive Care
Study: “Systematic review and meta-analysis of method comparison studies of Masimo pulse co-oximeters (Radical-7™ or Pronto-7™) and HemoCue® absorption spectrometers (B-Hemoglobin or 201+) with laboratory haemoglobinestimation”
Authors: Hiscock R, Kumar D, Simmons SW
Conclusion: “The overall standard deviation of difference was larger (1.42 g/dl versus 0.64 g/dl) for Masimo pulse co-oximeters compared to HemoCuephotometers. Masimo pulse co-oximeters (Rad-7™ and Pronto-7™) and HemoCue 201+ both provide an unbiased, pooled estimate of laboratory haemoglobin. However, Masimo devices have lower precision and wider 95% limits of agreement than HemoCue devices. Clinicians should carefully consider these limits of agreement before basing transfusion or other clinical decisions on these point-of-care measurements alone”

May 2015:
Journal of Surgical Research
Study: “A noninvasive hemoglobin monitor in the pediatric intensive care unit”
Authors: Phillips MR, Khoury AL, Bortsov AV, Marzinsky A, Short KA, Cairns BA, Charles AG, Joyner BL Jr, McLean SE.
Conclusion: The Masimo Pronto SpHb monitor is insufficient to be used as the sole indicator for transfusion decisions and should be used in context of other clinical parameters to determine the need for LabHb in critically ill pediatric patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25724765

April 2015:
British Journal of Anesthesia
Study: “Usefulness of non-invasive spectrophotometric haemoglobin estimation for detecting low haemoglobin levels when compared with a standard laboratory assay for preoperative assessment”
Khalafallah AA, Chilvers CR, Thomas M, ChilversCM, Sexton M, Vialle M, Robertson IK.
Conclusion: “Instant SpHb measurement may enable prompt routine preoperative anaemiamanagement, but its precision was lower than expected.”

Mar 2015:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
Study: “Accuracy of continuous noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring for the prediction of bloodtransfusions in trauma patients”
Authors: Galvagno SM Jr, Hu P, Yang S, Gao C, Hanna D, Shackelford S, Mackenzie C
Conclusion: “SpHb did not enhance predictive models in comparison to use of features extracted from conventional pulse oximetry. Nor was shock index better than conventional oximetry at discriminating hemorrhaging and prediction of casualties receiving blood. In this population of trauma patients, noninvasive SpHb monitoring, including both trends and absolute values, did not enhance the ability to predict the need for blood transfusion.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25753142

Feb 2015:
Study: “Does a non-invasive hemoglobin monitor correlate with a venous blood sample in the acutely ill?”
Authors: von Schweinitz BA, De Lorenzo RA, Cuenca PJ, Anschutz RL, Allen PB
Conclusion: “Our results show that Radical-7 and Rad-57 devices do not report readings in 29% of patients and accuracy is significantly lower than reported by the manufacturer with over 50% of readings falling outside of ± 1 g/dL. We determined that none of the several potential factors examined are associated with the degree of device accuracy.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25322853

Feb 2015:
Journal of Anesthesia
Study: “The accuracy of non-invasively continuous total hemoglobin measurement by pulse CO-Oximetry undergoing acute normovolemichemodilution and reinfusion of autologous blood”
Authors: Saito J, Kitayama M, Oishi M, Kudo T, Sawada M, Hashimoto H, Hirota K.
Conclusions: The present data suggest that SpHb may overestimate tHb during acute normovolemic hemodilution and reinfusion of autologous blood.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24972855

Sept 2014:
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Article: “Accuracy of noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring in patients at risk for hemorrhage”
Authors: Tsuei BJ, Hanseman DJ, Blakeman MJ, Blakeman TC, Yang SH, Branson RD, Gerlach TW.
Conclusion: “Changes in SpHb had concordance with CBC Hgb 60% of the time, compared with 76% for iSTAT versus CBC CONCLUSION: Radical-7 SpHb was inaccurate when compared with CBC Hgblevels, and serial SpHb achieved concordance with CBC Hgb 60% of the time. As such, the clinical utility of Radical-7 as a rapid, noninvasive predictor of acute hemorrhage may be limited.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25159346

 

Who left the outliers in the cake batter?

 

not Pj