ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2026
Exploring reference standards for the measurement of respiratory rate in children under 5 years of age: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 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.
- Noninvasive Measurement of Infant Respiration During Sleep: A Validation Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory rate is an important part of assessing the clinical state of children, and various methods exist to measure it. However, there is a lack of a universally accepted reference standard to validate the performance of these methods.
aimTo identify different reference standards that have been used to evaluate respiratory rate measurement methods in children under 5 years of age and describe their perceived strengths and limitations.
methodsMEDLINE and Web of Science were searched for studies in English. Studies of children under 5 years of age, published between 2013 and 2024, in which a method for measuring respiratory rate was compared against a reference standard, were included. Deductive content analysis was used to map perceived strengths and limitations of each standard, and a forest plot analysis was used to compare agreement between the reference standard and the index tests.
resultsFrom 992 retrieved studies, 56 were included. The most common reference standard was impedance pneumography (22/56), primarily used in high-income settings, followed by manual counting (19/56), mostly employed in low- and middle-income settings, and capnography (9/56). Child age, clinical condition, setting, training of personnel and the ease of implementation were all important factors in which the reference standard was used and how it performed.
conclusionThree different reference standards were used for most studies; however, their relative performance to each other is unclear. There is a need for research that directly compares the performance of these reference standards across different age strata and settings in order to confidently recommend a reference standard for respiratory rate measurement methods.
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.