MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2981328317 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.09.013

Are respiratory rate counters really so bad? Throwing the baby out with the bath water

2019· article· en· W2981328317 sur OpenAlexaff
J. Mark Ansermino, Dustin Dunsmuir, Walter Karlen, Heng Gan, Guy A. Dumont

Notice bibliographique

RevueEClinicalMedicine · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRespiratory viral infections research
Établissements canadiensBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRespiratory rateConcordanceCapnographyPediatricsHeart rateInternal medicineAnesthesia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We congratulate Baker et al. [[1]Baker K Alfvén T Mucunguzi A Wharton-smith A Dantzer E Habte T et al.Performance of four respiratory rate counters to support community health workers to detect the symptoms of pneumonia in children in low resource settings: a prospective, multicentre, hospital-based, single-blinded, comparative trial.EClinicalMedicine. 2019; (preprint)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.05.013Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar] on their bold attempt to evaluate respiratory rate counters. However, their data show significant variability and wide limits of agreement with all devices which are much greater than reported in previous studies. The gross errors (>30 breaths/ minute) are much more likely due to artifacts in the reference capnometer device or the lack of breath identification by the observer than test device performance. We strongly support the use of capnography as a reference device for respiratory rate measurement. However, this invasive procedure introduces many additional risks. The difficulty of using capnography in awake children is reflected in the fact that one quarter of observations were withdrawn [[1]Baker K Alfvén T Mucunguzi A Wharton-smith A Dantzer E Habte T et al.Performance of four respiratory rate counters to support community health workers to detect the symptoms of pneumonia in children in low resource settings: a prospective, multicentre, hospital-based, single-blinded, comparative trial.EClinicalMedicine. 2019; (preprint)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.05.013Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar]. Capnometers measure respiratory rate by detecting the presence of exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2) in each breath [[2]Eipe N Doherty DR. A review of pediatric capnography.J Clin Monit Comput. 2010; 24 (Aug): 261-268Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar]. The magnitude, regularity and shape of the CO2 waveform must be used to confirm the rate [[3]Krauss B Hess DR. Capnography for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department.Ann Emerg Med. 2007; 50: 272-281Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (126) Google Scholar]. This is especially important in small children with rapid breathing rates and small tidal volumes which result in dilution of the end tidal gas. Expert observer counting and analysis of sequential observations from each observer should help in identifying the cause of these gross errors. The inability to identify a breath should be considered less a failure of the device and more of the observer. The clinical measurement of respiratory rate is widely used in clinical diagnosis in children. Until the performance of automated counters have been established, the use of respiratory rate counters should not be discarded based on this study alone. The authors are the inventors of the RRate app. that has been evaluated by Baker et al. Performance of Four Respiratory Rate Counters to Support Community Health Workers to Detect the Symptoms of Pneumonia in Children in Low Resource Settings: A Prospective, Multicentre, Hospital-Based, Single-Blinded, Comparative TrialNone of the four devices evaluated performed well based on agreement with the reference standard. The ARI timer currently recommended for use by CHWs should only be replaced by more expensive, equally performing, automated RR devices when aspects such as usability and duration of the device significantly improve the patient-provider experience. Full-Text PDF Open AccessMore work needs to be done to ensure that better pneumonia diagnostics aids are developed and launched to better support frontline health workers–A response to “Are respiratory rate counters really so bad” by Ansermino et al.We thank Ansermino et al for their valuable contribution to the discussion on evaluating respiratory rate (RR) diagnostic aids. We completely agree when they say “Until the performance of automated counters have been established, the use of respiratory rate counters should not be discarded based on this study alone”. While we did not test automated RR diagnostic aids in our study [1], we did see large variations in the agreement between the four RR diagnostic aids we tested and the reference standard presented, i.e the Masimo Root patient monitoring and connectivity platform with Phasein ISA CO2 capnography using nasal cannulas. Full-Text PDF Open Access

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,452
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,073
Tête enseignante GPT0,392
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEClinicalMedicineMême sujetRespiratory viral infections researchTravaux en français237 207