ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Evaluating the performance of a video expert panel in assessing respiratory rate from recorded videos for the diagnosis of non-severe paediatric pneumonia.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the process of interpreting chest movement videos for respiratory rate (RR) assessment in children aged 0-59 months with suspected non-severe pneumonia by a video expert panel (VEP) and to evaluate the panel's performance.
methodsSix physicians trained and standardised to RR assessment from recorded videos formed a VEP. The panel interpreted RR from recorded videos collected from health facilities in Bangladesh. The videos were distributed using a web-based system among the panel members. Each member was evaluated by assessing inter-reader agreement among the primary readers, each reader's agreement with the final panel reading and intrareader agreement using per cent agreement. Agreement was defined as the video being interpretable and the difference in RR count between two readers being ≤2 breaths per minute. The panel's performance was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis against a panel of paediatricians who reviewed a randomly selected 10% subset of videos.
resultsAmong the 605 videos, the VEP classified 89.9% (n=544) of them as interpretable with RR count difference ≤2 breaths per minute, 2.0% (n=12) as interpretable with RR count difference >2 breaths per minute and 8.1% (n=49) as uninterpretable. For the video interpretability, inter-reader agreement among primary readers ranged from 88% to 95%, each reader's agreement with the final panel was 90%-95%, and intrareader agreement was 98%-100%. For the RR measurement, five out of six VEP members demonstrated satisfactory inter-reader agreement (80%-83%), agreement with final panel reading (92%-97%) and intrareader agreement (92%-100%). One outlier reader showed lower agreement levels of 55%, 61% and 75%, respectively. The mean difference in RR counts between the VEP and paediatrician panel was -0.3 breaths per minute, and limits of agreement were -3.0-2.3 breaths per minute.
conclusionThe performance of VEP was satisfactory for evaluating RR counting. The study provided valuable insights into the development and evaluation of the VEP as a potential reference standard.
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.