ArticleJournal of tropical pediatrics2021
Evaluating the Interrater Agreement and Acceptability of a New Reference Tool for Assessing Respiratory Rate in Children under Five with Cough and/or Difficulty Breathing.
Article in Journal of tropical pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring reference standards for the measurement of respiratory rate in children under 5 years of age: a scoping review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Multimodal pulse oximeters to support the integrated management of childhood illnesses: A usability and diagnostic accuracy assessment from a multi-country hybrid type 2 study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the performance of community health care providers in detecting fast breathing in children using a reference video expert panel in Bangladesh.Discover public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the performance of a video expert panel in assessing respiratory rate from recorded videos for the diagnosis of non-severe paediatric pneumonia.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Evaluating the performance of an automated respiratory rate counter in detecting fast breathing pneumonia in children using a reference video expert panel.BMC digital health · 2025Article
- Performance evaluation of human cough annotators: optimal metrics and sex differences.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Article
- Article
- Identification of thresholds for accuracy comparisons of heart rate and respiratory rate in neonates.Gates open research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManual assessment of respiratory rate (RR) in children is unreliable, but remains the main method to diagnose pneumonia in low-resource settings. While automated RR counters offer a potential solution, there is currently no gold standard to validate these diagnostic aids. A video-based reference tool is proposed that allows users to annotate breaths and distortions including movement periods, allowing the exclusion of distortions from the computation of RR measures similar to how new diagnostic aids account for distortions automatically. This study evaluated the interrater agreement and acceptability of the new reference tool.
methodsAnnotations were based on previously recorded reference videos of children under five years old with cough and/or difficulty breathing (n = 50). Five randomly selected medical experts from a panel of ten annotated each video. RR measures (breaths per minute, bpm) were computed as the number of annotated certain breaths divided by the length of calm periods after removing annotated distorted periods.
resultsReviewers showed good interrater agreement on continuous RR {standard error of measurement (SEM) [4.8 (95%CI 4.4-5.3)]} and substantial agreement on classification of fast breathing (Fleiss kappa, κ 0.71). Agreement was lowest in the youngest age group [< 2 months: SEM 6.2 (5.4-7.4) bpm, κ 0.48; 2-11 months: 4.7 (4.0-5.8) bpm, κ 0.84; 12-59 months: 2.6 (2.2-3.1) bpm, κ 0.8]. Reviewers found the functionalities of the tool helpful in annotating breaths, but remained uncertain about the validity of their annotations.
conclusionsBefore the new tool can be considered a reference standard for RR assessments, interrater agreement in children younger than 2 months must be improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.