Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33015146›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2020

Current clinical methods of measurement of respiratory rate give imprecise values.

Gordon B Drummond, Darius Fischer, D K Arvind

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Gordon B DrummondDept of Anaesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh UK.
Darius FischerCentre for Speckled Computing, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
D K ArvindCentre for Speckled Computing, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_MR/R024405/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRespiratory rate is a basic clinical measurement used for illness assessment. Errors in measuring respiratory rate are attributed to observer and equipment problems. Previous studies commonly report rate differences ranging from 2 to 6 breaths·min

methodsTo study why repeated observations should vary so much, we conducted a virtual experiment, using continuous recordings of breathing from acutely ill patients. These records allowed each breathing cycle to be precisely timed. We made repeated random measures of respiratory rate using different sample durations of 30, 60 and 120 s. We express the variation in these repeated rate measurements for the different sample durations as the interquartile range of the values obtained for each subject. We predicted what values would be found if a single measure, taken from any patient, were repeated and inspected boundary values of 12, 20 or 25 breaths·min

resultsWhen the sample duration was nominally 30 s, the mean interquartile range of repeated estimates was 3.4 breaths·min

conclusionsEarly warning scores will be unreliable when short sample durations are used to measure respiratory rate. Precision improves with longer sample duration, but this may be impractical unless better measurement methods are used.

Identifiers

PMID33015146
PMCPMC7520170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.