一款手机呼吸频率计数器与世界卫生组织急性呼吸道感染定时器的性能比较。
The Performance of a Mobile Phone Respiratory Rate Counter Compared to the WHO ARI Timer.
作者信息
Gan Heng, Karlen Walter, Dunsmuir Dustin, Zhou Guohai, Chiu Michelle, Dumont Guy A, Ansermino J Mark
机构信息
Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada.
Department of Anaesthesia, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
出版信息
J Healthc Eng. 2015;6(4):691-703. doi: 10.1260/2040-2295.6.4.691.
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.
目的
比较呼吸频率（RR）RRate移动应用程序与世界卫生组织急性呼吸道感染定时器的准确性和效率。
方法
志愿者使用这两种设备从婴幼儿和儿童的参考视频中测量RR。使用相关性、布兰德-奥特曼分析、误差指标和测量时间对测量结果进行比较。
结果
两种设备的测量结果与参考值高度相关（r = 0.991和r = 0.982），且相互之间高度相关（r = 0.973）。RRate的偏差比急性呼吸道感染定时器大（0.6对0.04次/分钟），但一致性界限更窄（-4.5至3.3次/分钟对-5.5至5.5次/分钟）。RRate比急性呼吸道感染定时器更准确（百分比误差10.6%对14.8%，均方根误差2.1对2.8次/分钟，归一化均方根误差5.6%对7.5%）。RRate的测量速度快52.7秒（95%置信区间50.4秒至54.9秒）。
结论
在视频观察期间，与急性呼吸道感染定时器相比，RRate测量RR的速度更快，准确性相似。
Zotero 插件