ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2024
Assessment of respiratory rate monitoring in the emergency department.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of manual and automated respiratory rate measurements on hospital wards: a prospective observational study.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Observational
- Dyspnea Management in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department at Cantonal Hospital Baselland-A Retrospective Observational Study and Medical Audit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Remote photoplethysmography for health assessment: a review informed by IntelliProve technology.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Respiratory rate: The third vital sign.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Article
- Assessment of respiratory rate monitoring in the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the different respiratory rate (RR) monitoring methods used in the emergency department (ED): manual documentation, telemetry, and capnography. Methods: This is a retrospective study using recorded patient monitoring data. The study population includes patients who presented to a tertiary care ED between January 2020 and December 2022. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were patients with simultaneous recorded RR data from all three methods and less than 10 min of recording, respectively. Linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis were performed between different methods. Results: A total of 351 patient encounters met study criteria. Linear regression yielded an Conclusion: There is a poor correlation between manual documentation and both automated methods, while there is relatively good agreement between the automated methods. This finding highlights the need to further investigate the methodology used by the ED staff in monitoring and documenting RR and ways to improve its reliability given that many important clinical decisions are made based on these assessments.
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.