ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2022
Acceptability, usability and efficacy of an automatic respiratory monitor in determining fast breathing:
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of automated respiratory rate counters for respiratory rate assessment to support pneumonia detection among children under five years of age in low- and middle-income settings: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence.Journal of global health · 2026Pooled it
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Childhood pneumonia is one of the leading causes of mortality among under-five children. It is responsible for 15% of all deaths of children U5, killing 808,694 children in 2017 (1). Traditional visual inspection and manual count method is used to detect and classify fast-breathing, a key indicator of Pneumonia. In response to UNICEF's call for a reliable diagnostic tool, Philips was the first to respond with the Children's Automatic Respiratory Monitor for measuring fast breathing objectively. Aim: UNICEF and Philips Foundation initiated a field study to test the acceptability, usability and efficacy of the Automatic Respiratory Monitor in Determining Fast Breathing in low resource setting environments. Settings and Design: Philips Foundation partnered up with the Directorate of Medical Education in West Bengal, India to conduct the field study amongst community healthcare workers and beneficiaries in a rural district of West Bengal. In collaboration with North Bengal Medical College & Hospital, a community-based study was conducted in a tribal tea garden of Naxalbari block. Methods and Material: Acceptability and usability of the device was assessed through structtured interviews and dialogues with community health workers (CHWs), caregivers and local healthcare practitioners. Efficacy of the device was represented by the inter-rater agreement between the traditional visual inspection and manual count method and the device reading. Statistical Analysis Used: A descriptive community based mixed method study was conducted. Satisfaction among community healthcare workers (CHWs) and beneficiaries was found to be promising across all study parameters. Results and Conclusions: The paper captures the study methods, statistical analysis of the data, the conclusions, areas of further research and recommends community-wide use of the device in objectively measuring fast breathing among children under the age of five years.
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.