ArticleScientific reports2022
Accuracy and reliability of the optoelectronic plethysmography and the heart rate systems for measuring breathing rates compared with the spirometer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of the Interpolated Surface Mesh Method for OEP Volume Measurement.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Objective dyspnea measurement in real time using a forehead wearable and artificial intelligence.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- A dataset of video recordings for respiratory rate counting from chest wall movements in children aged below five years.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Advances in Respiratory Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review of Wearable and Remote Technologies.Biosensors · 2024Review
- Efficacy of Marker-Based Motion Capture for Respiratory Cycle Measurement: A Comparison with Spirometry.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Recent Progress in Long-Term Sleep Monitoring Technology.Biosensors · 2023Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measuring breathing rates without a mouthpiece is of interest in clinical settings. Electrocardiogram devices and, more recently, optoelectronic plethysmography (OEP) methods can estimate breathing rates with only a few electrodes or motion-capture markers placed on the patient. This study estimated and compared the accuracy and reliability of three non-invasive devices: an OEP system with 12 markers, an electrocardiogram device and the conventional spirometer. Using the three devices simultaneously, we recorded 72 six-minute epochs on supine subjects. Our results show that the OEP system has a very low limit of agreement and a bias lower than 0.4% compared with the spirometer, indicating that these devices can be used interchangeably. We observed comparable results for electrocardiogram devices. The OEP system facilitates breathing rate measurements and offers a more complete chest-lung volume analysis that can be easily associated with heart rate analysis without any synchronisation process, for useful features for clinical applications and intensive care.
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.