Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
A Comparison of Methods to Count Breathing Frequency. |
| Authors: |
Atsushi Takayama, Taro Takeshima, Yutaka Nakashima, Takahiro Yoshidomi, Takahiko Nagamine, Kazuhiko Kotani |
| Source: |
Respiratory Care; May2019, Vol. 64 Issue 5, p555-563, 9p, 6 Graphs |
| Subject Terms: |
STATISTICAL correlation, PHYSICAL diagnosis, RESPIRATORY measurements, T-test (Statistics), VITAL signs, CROSS-sectional method |
| Abstract: |
BACKGROUND: Counting breaths for a full minute for all patients to determine breathing frequency could result in excessive work load for many medical staff. The aim of this study was to verify the agreement of 2 quick screening methods with counting breaths for a full minute. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to compare the breathing frequency estimates from a 15-s period multiplied by 4 (15-s quadruple) and a value which is 60 divided by the time measured for a single breath (ie, breathing time measurement) against counting breaths for a full minute. Subjects of this study included 58 nurses; 1 nurse acted as the patient, and 57 nurses counted the patient's breathing frequency using each of the 3 methods. Each nurse examiner performed the breathing time measurement, the 15-s quadruple method, and the 1-min breath count, in that order. We performed correlation and Bland-Altman analyses between the 15-s quadruple and 1-min breath count methods, and between the breathing time measurement and 1-min breath count methods. Using paired t tests, we compared the absolute difference between the 15-s quadruple and the 1-min breath count methods to the absolute difference between the breathing time measurement and the 1-min breath count methods. RESULTS: The coefficient of correlation between the 15-s quadruple and 1-min breath count was 0.83, while the coefficient of correlation between the breathing time measurement and 1-min breath count methods was 0.90. Brand-Altman analysis indicated that the bias of 15-s quadruple method to the 1-min breath count method was -2.1 ± 2.9 SD, and the limit of agreement was ±5.6; the bias of the breathing time measurement method to the 1-min breath count method was 0.5 ± 2.6 SD, and the limit of agreement was ±5.0. There were statistically significant differences between the 15-s quadruple and 1-min breath count methods and between the breathing time measurement and 1-min breath count methods (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The breathing time measurement method had better agreement with the 1-min breath count method than did the 15-s quadruple method in this study setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Respiratory Care is the property of American Association for Respiratory Care and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Supplemental Index |
