Heng Gan1,2, Walter Karlen3, Dustin Dunsmuir1, Guohai Zhou4, Michelle Chiu5, Guy A Dumont6, J Mark Ansermino1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada. 2. Department of Anaesthesia, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada. 5. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada. 6. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and efficiency of the respiratory rate (RR) RRate mobile application to the WHO ARI Timer. METHODS: Volunteers used both devices to measure RR from reference videos of infants and children. Measurements were compared using correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, error metrics and time taken. RESULTS: Measurements with either device were highly correlated to the reference (r = 0.991 and r = 0.982), and to each other (r = 0.973). RRate had a larger bias than the ARI Timer (0.6 vs. 0.04 br/min), but tighter limits of agreement (-4.5 to 3.3 br/min vs. -5.5 to 5.5 br/min). RRate was more accurate than the ARI Timer (percentage error 10.6% vs. 14.8%, root mean square error 2.1 vs. 2.8 br/min and normalized root mean square error 5.6% vs. 7.5%). RRate measurements were 52.7 seconds (95% CI 50.4 s to 54.9 s) faster. CONCLUSION: During video observations, RRate measured RR quicker with a similar accuracy compared to the ARI Timer.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and efficiency of the respiratory rate (RR) RRate mobile application to the WHO ARI Timer. METHODS: Volunteers used both devices to measure RR from reference videos of infants and children. Measurements were compared using correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, error metrics and time taken. RESULTS: Measurements with either device were highly correlated to the reference (r = 0.991 and r = 0.982), and to each other (r = 0.973). RRate had a larger bias than the ARI Timer (0.6 vs. 0.04 br/min), but tighter limits of agreement (-4.5 to 3.3 br/min vs. -5.5 to 5.5 br/min). RRate was more accurate than the ARI Timer (percentage error 10.6% vs. 14.8%, root mean square error 2.1 vs. 2.8 br/min and normalized root mean square error 5.6% vs. 7.5%). RRate measurements were 52.7 seconds (95% CI 50.4 s to 54.9 s) faster. CONCLUSION: During video observations, RRate measured RR quicker with a similar accuracy compared to the ARI Timer.
Authors: Alishah Mawji; Edmond Li; Clare Komugisha; Samuel Akech; Dustin Dunsmuir; Matthew O Wiens; Niranjan Kissoon; Nathan Kenya-Mugisha; Abner Tagoola; David Kimutai; Jeffrey N Bone; Guy Dumont; J Mark Ansermino Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Alishah Mawji; Samuel Akech; Paul Mwaniki; Dustin Dunsmuir; Jeffrey Bone; Matthew O Wiens; Matthias Görges; David Kimutai; Niranjan Kissoon; Mike English; Mark J Ansermino Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2021-04-19
Authors: Noa Kallioinen; Andrew Hill; Melany J Christofidis; Mark S Horswill; Marcus O Watson Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 3.057