Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Comparison of manual and automated respiratory rate measurements on hospital wards: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Evaluation of a Real-Time Wearable System for Monitoring In-Hospital Ambulatory Patients With COVID-19: Retrospective Data Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory rate is an important early sign of clinical deterioration but the current practice of counting breaths manually is time-consuming and prone to error. We aimed to determine the concordance between manual respiratory rate measurements and automated measurements recorded using a wearable device. We undertook a prospective observational study on three general respiratory wards to compare manual respiratory rate measurements collected during usual clinical care with automated readings from a wearable respiratory rate monitor (RespiraSense, PMD Solutions, Cork, Ireland). Thirty-one patients took part in the study. Manual respiratory rate readings displayed large peaks at 20 and 24 breaths/min, whereas automated readings followed a smooth bell-shaped distribution. Manual and automated respiratory rates were both higher during the day than at night, and this was more marked for automated readings. Automated readings were on average 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 2.8) breaths/minute higher than time-matched manual readings, and the 95% limits of agreement were - 7.9 (95% CI -8.4 to -7.4) and 12.9 (95% CI 12.3 to 13.4) breaths/minute, wider than the clinically acceptable limits of ± 3 breaths/min. Trends in manual and automated respiratory rates were concordant in only 56% of cases. Automated respiratory rate measurements using RespiraSense do not display clinically acceptable agreement with manual measurements in the setting of a respiratory ward.
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.