Current clinical methods of measurement of respiratory rate give imprecise values
| Autor: | D. J. Fischer, D. K. Arvind, Gordon B. Drummond |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
Measurement method Respiratory rate business.industry lcsh:R lcsh:Medicine Sample (statistics) Original Articles 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology Early warning score Clinical method Single measure 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Lung Function Interquartile range Statistics Breathing Medicine 030212 general & internal medicine business |
| Zdroj: | ERJ Open Research, Vol 6, Iss 3 (2020) ERJ Open Research article-version (VoR) Version of Record Drummond, G B, Fischer, D & Arvind, D K 2020, ' Current clinical methods of measurement of respiratory rate give imprecise values ', ERJ Open Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 00023-2020 . https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00023-2020 |
| ISSN: | 2312-0541 |
| DOI: | 10.1183/23120541.00023-2020 |
| Popis: | Background Respiratory rate is a basic clinical measurement used for illness assessment. Errors in measuring respiratory rate are attributed to observer and equipment problems. Previous studies commonly report rate differences ranging from 2 to 6 breaths·min−1 between observers. Methods To study why repeated observations should vary so much, we conducted a virtual experiment, using continuous recordings of breathing from acutely ill patients. These records allowed each breathing cycle to be precisely timed. We made repeated random measures of respiratory rate using different sample durations of 30, 60 and 120 s. We express the variation in these repeated rate measurements for the different sample durations as the interquartile range of the values obtained for each subject. We predicted what values would be found if a single measure, taken from any patient, were repeated and inspected boundary values of 12, 20 or 25 breaths·min−1, used by the UK National Early Warning Score, for possible mis-scoring. Results When the sample duration was nominally 30 s, the mean interquartile range of repeated estimates was 3.4 breaths·min−1. For the 60 s samples, the mean interquartile range was 3 breaths·min−1, and for the 120 s samples it was 2.5 breaths·min−1. Thus, repeat clinical counts of respiratory rate often differ by >3 breaths·min−1. For 30 s samples, up to 40% of National Early Warning Scores could be misclassified. Conclusions Early warning scores will be unreliable when short sample durations are used to measure respiratory rate. Precision improves with longer sample duration, but this may be impractical unless better measurement methods are used. In acutely ill patients, the usual 30 s to count breathing are insufficient to give a reliable measurement https://bit.ly/31DNhKU |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|