Comparison of manual and automated respiratory rate measurements on hospital wards: a prospective observational study
Main finding · Agreement, automated vs time-matched manual respiratory rateResult — go to the resultMean difference 2.5 breaths/minute 95% CI 2.2–2.8Authors' conclusion
Automated respiratory rate measurements using RespiraSense do not display clinically acceptable agreement with manual measurements in the setting of a respiratory ward.
Study context
- Population
- Patients on general respiratory wards
- Participants
- 31 patients
- Exposure
- Automated vs manual respiratory rate measurement
- Outcome
- Concordance between manual and automated respiratory rate measurements
Methodological detailsmethod comparison, three general respiratory wards
- Method comparison
- Three general respiratory wards
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Agreement, automated vs time-matched manual respiratory rate
Mean difference
2.5 breaths/minute
95% CI 2.2–2.8
Automated vs Manual
mean difference 2.5 breaths/minute (95% CI 2.2–2.8)
- Trends in manual and automated respiratory rates concordant
- 56%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Distribution of readings
- Manual readings showed large peaks at 20 and 24 breaths/min; automated readings followed a smooth bell-shaped distribution
Day vs night respiratory rate
- Both higher during the day than at night, more marked for automated readings
Original publication
Comparison of manual and automated respiratory rate measurements on hospital wards: a prospective observational study. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 15 November 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →