Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31388660›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2019

Performance of Four Respiratory Rate Counters to Support Community Health Workers to Detect the Symptoms of Pneumonia in Children in Low Resource Settings: A Prospective, Multicentre, Hospital-Based, Single-Blinded, Comparative Trial.

Kevin Baker, Tobias Alfvén, Akasiima Mucunguzi, Alexandra Wharton-Smith, Emily Dantzer, Tedila Habte, Lena Matata, Diana Nanyumba, Morris Okwir, Monica Posada and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Implementation of a fast triage score for patients arriving to a low resource hospital in Uganda.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Kevin BakerMalaria Consortium, London, United Kingdom.
Tobias AlfvénKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Akasiima MucunguziMalaria Consortium, Kampala, Uganda.
Alexandra Wharton-SmithMalaria Consortium, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Emily DantzerMalaria Consortium, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Tedila HabteMalaria Consortium, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Lena MatataMalaria Consortium, Juba, South Sudan.
Diana NanyumbaMalaria Consortium, Kampala, Uganda.
Morris OkwirMalaria Consortium, Juba, South Sudan.
Monica PosadaMalaria Consortium, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Anteneh SebsibeMalaria Consortium, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Jill NicholsonMalaria Consortium, London, United Kingdom.
Madeleine MarasciuloMalaria Consortium, Raleigh, USA.
Rasa IzadnegahdarBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, USA.
Max PetzoldGothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Karin KällanderMalaria Consortium, London, United Kingdom.
Cambodia National Malaria Center · KHMalaria Consortium · GBMalaria Consortium · UGUniversity of Juba · SSGates Foundation · USKarolinska Institutet · SEMalaria Consortium · USUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPneumonia is one of the leading causes of death in children under-five globally. The current diagnostic criteria for pneumonia are based on increased respiratory rate (RR) or chest in-drawing in children with cough and/or difficulty breathing. Accurately counting RR is difficult for community health workers (CHWs). Current RR counting devices are frequently inadequate or unavailable. This study analysed the performance of improved RR timers for detection of pneumonia symptoms in low-resource settings.

methodsFour RR timers were evaluated on 454 children, aged from 0 to 59 months with cough and/or difficulty breathing, over three months, by CHWs in hospital settings in Cambodia, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Uganda. The devices were the Mark Two ARI timer (MK2 ARI), counting beads with ARI timer, Rrate Android phone and the Respirometer feature phone applications. Performance was evaluated for agreement with an automated RR reference standard (Masimo Root patient monitoring and connectivity platform with ISA CO

findingsWhile most CHWs managed to achieve a RR count with the four devices, the agreement was low for all; the mean difference of RR measurements from the reference standard for the four devices ranged from 0.5 (95% C.I. - 2.2 to 1.2) for the respirometer to 5.5 (95% C.I. 3.2 to 7.8) for Rrate. Performance was consistently lower for young infants (0 to < 2 months) than for older children (2 to ≤ 59 months). Agreement of RR classification into fast and normal breathing was moderate across all four devices, with Cohen's Kappa statistics ranging from 0.41 (SE 0.04) to 0.49 (SE 0.05).

interpretationNone of the four devices evaluated performed well based on agreement with the reference standard. The ARI timer currently recommended for use by CHWs should only be replaced by more expensive, equally performing, automated RR devices when aspects such as usability and duration of the device significantly improve the patient-provider experience.

fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1054367].

Indexed as

Childhood pneumoniaDiagnostic toolsHealth worker performanceLow-income countryRespiratory rate counting

Identifiers

PMID31388660
PMCPMC6677646
OpenAlexW2952605131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.