Observational studyPediatric pulmonology2022
Performance and usability of a new mobile application for measuring respiratory rate in young children with acute lower respiratory infections.
Observational study in Pediatric pulmonology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring reference standards for the measurement of respiratory rate in children under 5 years of age: a scoping review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Repeatability of RRate measurements in children during triage in two Ugandan hospitals.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Respiratory Rate Measurement Using Mobile Applications in Healthcare Settings: A Scoping Review.Healthcare technology lettersReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRespiratory rate (RR) measurement is critical to diagnosing pneumonia in resource-constrained settings, but accurate RR measurement is challenging. The acute lower respiratory illness treatment and evaluation (ALRITE) mobile phone application (app), designed to help healthcare workers (HCWs) manage pediatric respiratory illnesses, includes a semiautomated RR counter. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and usability of the ALRITE RR counter and a commercially available RR counter app, RRate, with a reference standard.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study of HCWs. Participants used both apps to measure the RR of pediatric patients from standardized videos. The reference standard was determined by consensus of a manual 1-min count by two providers. We assessed agreement using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and constructed Bland-Altman plots to determine bias and limits of agreement. Participants completed a usability survey.
resultsThirty-nine HCWs participated. The agreement between the apps and reference standard (Spearman's coefficient) was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.87) for ALRITE and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52-0.70) for RRate. ALRITE had a bias of -2 breaths/min (lower limit of agreement [LoA] -16 to +12) and RRate had a bias of -0.4 breaths/min (LoA -24 to +23) compared to the reference standard. Both apps had a poorer agreement at higher RRs. Based on usability survey responses, 95% found ALRITE easy to use.
conclusionsThe ALRITE RR counter has acceptable accuracy for counting RR in infants with respiratory distress, appears to be more accurate than a commercially available option, and was user-friendly. The ALRITE RR counter is a promising tool for meriting evaluation in real-world settings.
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.