ArticleBJGP open2022
The accuracy and feasibility of respiratory rate measurements in acutely ill adult patients by GPs: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07299968 (Evaluation of the Welch Allyn Connex Spot Monitor in Measuring Respiratory Rate in the Emergency Department), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Evaluation of the Welch Allyn Connex Spot Monitor in Measuring Respiratory Rate in the Emergency Department: a Prospective Observational Study Protocol
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing a sepsis prediction score in out-of-hours primary care: Feasibility and acceptability study.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTachypnoea in acutely ill patients can be an early sign of a life-threatening condition such as sepsis. Routine measurement of the respiratory rate by GPs might improve the recognition of sepsis.
aimTo assess the accuracy and feasibility of respiratory rate measurements by GPs. DESIGN &
settingObservational cross-sectional mixed-methods study in the setting of out-of-hours (OOH) home visits at three GP cooperatives in The Netherlands.
methodGPs were observed during the assessment of acutely ill patients, and semi-structured interviews were performed. The GP-assessed respiratory rate was compared with a reference measurement. In the event that the respiratory rate was not counted, GPs were asked to estimate the rate (dichotomised as ≥22 breaths per minute or <22 breaths per minute).
resultsObservations of 130 acutely ill patients were included, and 14 GPs were interviewed. In 33 patients (25%), the GP counted the respiratory rate. A mean difference of 0.27 breaths per minute (95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.7 to 6.3) with the reference measurement was found. At a cut-off point of ≥22 breaths per minute, a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI = 57% to 98%) was found when the GP counted the rate, and a sensitivity of 43% (95% CI = 22% to 66%) when GPs estimated respiratory rates. GPs reported both medical and practical reasons for not routinely measuring the respiratory rate.
conclusionGPs are aware of the importance of assessing the respiratory rate of acutely ill adult patients, and counted measurements are accurate. However, in most patients the respiratory rate was not counted, and the rate was often underestimated when estimated.
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.