Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35976483›Full record

ArticleVeterinary research communications2022

How should the respiration rate be counted in cattle?

L Dißmann, J Heinicke, K C Jensen, T Amon, G Hoffmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary research communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

L DißmannDepartment of Engineering for Livestock Management, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469, Potsdam, Germany. ldissmann@atb-potsdam.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6060-180X
J HeinickeDepartment of Engineering for Livestock Management, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469, Potsdam, Germany.
K C JensenInstitute for Veterinary Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Königsweg 67, Building 21, 14163, Berlin, Germany.
T AmonDepartment of Engineering for Livestock Management, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2468-3160
G HoffmannDepartment of Engineering for Livestock Management, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0421-6250

Funding

German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) 281C207A19German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) 28DK113A20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respiration rate (RR) is a proficient indicator to measure the health status of cattle. The common method of measurement is to count the number of respiratory cycles each minute based on flank movements. However, there is no consistent method of execution. In previous studies, various methods have been described, including counting flank movements for 15 s, 30 s or 60 s as well as stopping the time for 5 or 10 breaths. We assume that the accuracy of the aforementioned methods differs. Therefore, we compared their precision with an RR sensor, which was used as the reference method in this study. Five scientists from the fields of agricultural science and veterinary medicine quantified the flank movement according to each of the five methods mentioned above. The results showed that with an average RR of 30 breaths per minute (bpm), all methods showed a high correlation to the values of the RR sensor. However, counting breaths for 60 s had the highest level of conformity with the RR sensor (Lin`s concordance correlation coefficient: 0.96) regardless of the level of RR. With rising RR, the inaccuracy increased significantly for the other four investigated methods, especially when counting 5 and 10 breaths. Therefore, we would recommend that counting for 60 s should be used as the standard method for future studies due to its high precision regardless of the level of RR.

Indexed as

Respiratory RateAnimalsCattleFlank movementMethodRespiration rateRespiration rate sensor

Identifiers

PMID35976483
PMCPMC9684242

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.