Display options
Share it on

Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2021 Sep;26(5):e12885. doi: 10.1111/anec.12885. Epub 2021 Aug 18.

A review of the literature on the accuracy, strengths, and limitations of visual, thoracic impedance, and electrocardiographic methods used to measure respiratory rate in hospitalized patients.

Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc

Linda K Bawua, Christine Miaskowski, Xiao Hu, George W Rodway, Michele M Pelter

Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
  2. School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
  3. School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA.

PMID: 34405488 PMCID: PMC8411767 DOI: 10.1111/anec.12885

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Respiratory rate (RR) is one of the most important indicators of a patient's health. In critically ill patients, unrecognized changes in RR are associated with poorer outcomes. Visual assessment (VA), impedance pneumography (IP), and electrocardiographic-derived respiration (EDR) are the three most commonly used methods to assess RR. While VA and IP are widely used in hospitals, the EDR method has not been validated for use in hospitalized patients. Additionally, little is known about their accuracy compared with one another. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the accuracy, strengths, and limitations of VA of RR to two methods that use physiologic data, namely IP and EDR.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each of the studies was evaluated using standardized criteria.

RESULTS: Full manuscripts for 23 studies were reviewed, and four studies were included in this review. Three studies compared VA to IP and one study compared VA to EDR. In terms of accuracy, when Bland-Altman analyses were performed, the upper and lower levels of agreement were extremely poor for both the VA and IP and VA and EDR comparisons.

CONCLUSION: Given the paucity of research and the fact that no studies have compared all three methods, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the accuracy of these three methods. The clinical importance of accurate assessment of RR warrants new research with rigorous designs to determine the accuracy, and clinically meaningful levels of agreement of these methods.

© 2021 The Authors. Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Keywords: electrocardiography; hospitalized patients; impedance pneumography; respiratory rate; sensitivity/specificity; visual assessment

References

  1. J Electrocardiol. 2014 Nov-Dec;47(6):819-25 - PubMed
  2. Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Jan;45(1):68-76 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Nurs. 2014 May;23(9-10):1236-8 - PubMed
  4. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018 Oct 15;11:575-581 - PubMed
  5. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 31;10(1):5704 - PubMed
  6. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Oct;26(10):832-836 - PubMed
  7. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Sep;64(3 Suppl):524S-532S - PubMed
  8. Sensors (Basel). 2018 Aug 17;18(8): - PubMed
  9. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014 Oct;42(10):2072-83 - PubMed
  10. Resuscitation. 2007 Apr;73(1):62-72 - PubMed
  11. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;(3):CD005529 - PubMed
  12. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018 Sep 17;18(4):139-141 - PubMed
  13. Psychophysiology. 1999 May;36(3):333-8 - PubMed
  14. PLoS One. 2019 Jan 15;14(1):e0210875 - PubMed
  15. Anaesthesia. 2003 Aug;58(8):797-802 - PubMed
  16. Clin Physiol. 1984 Aug;4(4):333-42 - PubMed
  17. Anaesthesia. 2005 Jun;60(6):547-53 - PubMed
  18. Int J Psychophysiol. 2006 Feb;59(2):97-106 - PubMed
  19. Br J Nurs. 2014 Apr 24-May 7;23(8):414-8 - PubMed
  20. Br J Nurs. 2006 May 11-24;15(9):489-92 - PubMed
  21. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 22;9(10):e110274 - PubMed
  22. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010 Sep;57(9):2277-85 - PubMed
  23. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015 Aug;29(4):455-60 - PubMed
  24. Acute Med Surg. 2016 Nov 10;4(2):172-178 - PubMed
  25. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 19;10(6):e0129493 - PubMed
  26. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003 Jun;50(6):686-96 - PubMed
  27. J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Jul;8(7):354-60 - PubMed
  28. Physiol Meas. 2000 Feb;21(1):79-88 - PubMed
  29. Med J Aust. 2008 Jun 2;188(11):657-9 - PubMed
  30. Resuscitation. 2011 Nov;82(11):1381-6 - PubMed
  31. Biol Psychol. 1995 Nov 16;41(3):205-27 - PubMed
  32. Physiol Meas. 2016 Apr;37(4):610-26 - PubMed
  33. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2016 Nov;60(10):1444-1452 - PubMed
  34. Crit Care Resusc. 2008 Jun;10(2):111-15 - PubMed
  35. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51 - PubMed
  36. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2021 Sep;26(5):e12885 - PubMed
  37. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2011 Jun;46(6):523-9 - PubMed
  38. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2017 Mar;21(2):387-398 - PubMed
  39. Phys Ther. 2009 Sep;89(9):873-80 - PubMed
  40. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2010 May;14(3):718-25 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support