ArticleDiscover medicine2026
Effect of attaching ChARM automated respiratory rate counter on actual respiratory rate in children.
Article in Discover medicine, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate respiratory rate (RR) measurement is essential for diagnosing and classifying pneumonia in children. The Children's Automated Respiration Monitor (ChARM) can measure RR, but placing the device on the chest may influence a child's breathing. This study evaluated whether ChARM affects RR measurement and identification of fast breathing. We conducted a cross-sectional study in multiple health facilities in Bangladesh (2021-2022). Children aged 0-59 months presenting with suspected pneumonia were enrolled. RR was first measured manually by a physician or a health worker and then using ChARM, while chest movements during both measurements were video recorded. A six-member video expert panel (VEP) reviewed all recordings and derived manual RR. Differences in RR values and fast breathing classifications between the two measurement methods were examined. Of 339 enrolled children, both manual and ChARM measurements were obtained for 294; the remainder could not be assessed because of crying or movement. The child's condition remained same during both measurements in 256 cases. After excluding uninterpretable videos and readings without consensus, VEP-determined RR was available for 217 children. The mean difference in RR between the two measurements was 0.5 breaths per minute (standard error 0.4). RR classification (normal vs. fast breathing) changed in 21 children (9.7%), with moderate agreement between measurements (kappa = 0.749). ChARM did not significantly alter mean RR, though classification changed for a small proportion of children. Because exclusions and non-interpretable videos may have introduced bias, additional studies are required to more definitely evaluate whether device attachment influences RR or fast-breathing classification. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44337-026-00595-8.
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.