The Performance of a Mobile Phone Respiratory Rate Counter Compared to the WHO ARI Timer

J Healthc Eng. 2015;6(4):691-703. doi: 10.1260/2040-2295.6.4.691.

Abstract

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.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Cell Phone
  • Child, Preschool
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Infant
  • Infant, Newborn
  • Male
  • Mobile Applications*
  • Monitoring, Physiologic / instrumentation*
  • Monitoring, Physiologic / methods*
  • Respiratory Rate*