Key result
The RRate mobile application measured respiratory rate 52.7 seconds faster (95% CI 50.4-54.9) than the WHO ARI Timer, with lower percentage error (10.6% vs. 14.8%).
Why the study?
Does the RRate mobile application improve accuracy and efficiency of respiratory rate measurement compared to the WHO ARI Timer?
Cross-Sectional
Does the RRate mobile application improve accuracy and efficiency of respiratory rate measurement compared to the WHO ARI Timer?
The RRate mobile application provides faster and similarly accurate respiratory rate measurements compared to the standard WHO ARI Timer in a video observation setting.
May speed respiratory rate assessment in controlled settings; leaves open real-world clinical adoption and outcome impact.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and efficiency of the respiratory rate (RR) RRate mobile application to the WHO ARI Timer. METHODS: Volunteers used both devices to measure RR from reference videos of infants and children. Measurements were compared using correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, error metrics and time taken. RESULTS: Measurements with either device were highly correlated to the reference (r = 0.991 and r = 0.982), and to each other (r = 0.973). RRate had a larger bias than the ARI Timer (0.6 vs. 0.04 br/min), but tighter limits of agreement (-4.5 to 3.3 br/min vs. -5.5 to 5.5 br/min). RRate was more accurate than the ARI Timer (percentage error 10.6% vs. 14.8%, root mean square error 2.1 vs. 2.8 br/min and normalized root mean square error 5.6% vs. 7.5%). RRate measurements were 52.7 seconds (95% CI 50.4 s to 54.9 s) faster. CONCLUSION: During video observations, RRate measured RR quicker with a similar accuracy compared to the ARI Timer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gan et al. (2015) reported a cross-sectional. RRate mobile application vs. WHO ARI Timer was evaluated on Time taken to measure respiratory rate (MD 52.7 seconds faster, 95% CI 50.4-54.9). The RRate mobile application measured respiratory rate 52.7 seconds faster (95% CI 50.4-54.9) than the WHO ARI Timer, with lower percentage error (10.6% vs. 14.8%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: