ArticleBMC digital health2025
Evaluating the performance of an automated respiratory rate counter in detecting fast breathing pneumonia in children using a reference video expert panel.
Article in BMC digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Effect of attaching ChARM automated respiratory rate counter on actual respiratory rate in children.Discover medicine · 2026Article
- Respiratory Rate Measurement Using Mobile Applications in Healthcare Settings: A Scoping Review.Healthcare technology lettersReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: According to the World Health Organization's Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) guidelines, childhood pneumonia diagnosis relies on counting respiratory rate (RR). Counting RR by health workers is frequently inaccurate, leading to misdiagnosis and poor outcomes. Automated RR counters could potentially overcome these limitations. To address this gap, we introduced an automated RR counter and developed a reference video expert panel (VEP) to evaluate its performance. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study involving children aged 0-59 months with suspected pneumonia in Bangladesh. The RR of children was counted using an automated counter (ChARM) and chest movements were simultaneously videotaped. These videos were interpreted by the VEP, trained to a standard procedure. We assessed ChARM's accuracy in comparison to the RR generated by the VEP and summarised the time taken to count RR by ChARM. Results: Among 339 enrolled children, ChARM successfully counted the RR of 294 children (86.7%). The VEP reached a consensus (i.e., RR count difference within two breaths per minute (bpm) between two VEP members) in 257 of the 294 children (87.4%). ChARM and the VEP agreed on RR counts within two bpm in 68.1% of children ( Conclusions: ChARM counted RR accurately against a VEP reference, indicating a potential role in supporting health workers to diagnose pneumonia. However, it was unsuccessful for 1 in 8 cases, typically those more clinically challenging, suggesting a possible systematic bias. Further research is needed to address these issues and confirm ChARM's reliability for broader use in real-world settings. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14120515, registered retrospectively on 19 September 2024. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44247-025-00175-3.
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.