ReviewHealthcare technology letters
Respiratory Rate Measurement Using Mobile Applications in Healthcare Settings: A Scoping Review.
Review in Healthcare technology letters. 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory rate (RR) is a strong indicator of clinical trajectory and forms the basis of patient care and assessment. However, clinicians often face barriers to easily obtaining a RR without inefficient methods or costly technology. To remedy this, several phone applications have emerged where clinicians can tap out each breath to calculate a RR. We aimed to map the available evidence for tap-per-breath applications used in healthcare settings. We searched for articles using multiple databases, including primary research articles that evaluated tap-per-breath apps in healthcare settings. 14 articles were selected for this review, mostly cross-sectional and hospital based. Most applications reported high usability and efficiency, although results of accuracy were mixed across the included literature. Median-based apps were more often an accurate measure of RR, however more research is required. Articles were commonly limited in generalisability due to poorly defined reference standards, small sample sizes, or using retrospective video recordings for patient assessment. Studies showed favourable usability and efficiency across the literature, with median-based apps demonstrating greater consistency and accuracy of RR measurements. Though the scope of this review and limited evidence restrict any far-reaching clinical implications until further evidence emerges.
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.