Evaluating the Interrater Agreement and Acceptability of a New Reference Tool for Assessing Respiratory Rate in Children under Five with Cough and/or Difficulty Breathing.
diagnostic techniques
pneumonia
reference standards
reproducibility of results
respiratory rate
respiratory system
validation study
Journal
Journal of tropical pediatrics
ISSN: 1465-3664
Titre abrégé: J Trop Pediatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8010948
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 05 2021
17 05 2021
Historique:
entrez:
14
6
2021
pubmed:
15
6
2021
medline:
17
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Manual assessment of respiratory rate (RR) in children is unreliable, but remains the main method to diagnose pneumonia in low-resource settings. While automated RR counters offer a potential solution, there is currently no gold standard to validate these diagnostic aids. A video-based reference tool is proposed that allows users to annotate breaths and distortions including movement periods, allowing the exclusion of distortions from the computation of RR measures similar to how new diagnostic aids account for distortions automatically. This study evaluated the interrater agreement and acceptability of the new reference tool. Annotations were based on previously recorded reference videos of children under five years old with cough and/or difficulty breathing (n = 50). Five randomly selected medical experts from a panel of ten annotated each video. RR measures (breaths per minute, bpm) were computed as the number of annotated certain breaths divided by the length of calm periods after removing annotated distorted periods. Reviewers showed good interrater agreement on continuous RR {standard error of measurement (SEM) [4.8 (95%CI 4.4-5.3)]} and substantial agreement on classification of fast breathing (Fleiss kappa, κ 0.71). Agreement was lowest in the youngest age group [< 2 months: SEM 6.2 (5.4-7.4) bpm, κ 0.48; 2-11 months: 4.7 (4.0-5.8) bpm, κ 0.84; 12-59 months: 2.6 (2.2-3.1) bpm, κ 0.8]. Reviewers found the functionalities of the tool helpful in annotating breaths, but remained uncertain about the validity of their annotations. Before the new tool can be considered a reference standard for RR assessments, interrater agreement in children younger than 2 months must be improved.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Manual assessment of respiratory rate (RR) in children is unreliable, but remains the main method to diagnose pneumonia in low-resource settings. While automated RR counters offer a potential solution, there is currently no gold standard to validate these diagnostic aids. A video-based reference tool is proposed that allows users to annotate breaths and distortions including movement periods, allowing the exclusion of distortions from the computation of RR measures similar to how new diagnostic aids account for distortions automatically. This study evaluated the interrater agreement and acceptability of the new reference tool.
METHODS
Annotations were based on previously recorded reference videos of children under five years old with cough and/or difficulty breathing (n = 50). Five randomly selected medical experts from a panel of ten annotated each video. RR measures (breaths per minute, bpm) were computed as the number of annotated certain breaths divided by the length of calm periods after removing annotated distorted periods.
RESULTS
Reviewers showed good interrater agreement on continuous RR {standard error of measurement (SEM) [4.8 (95%CI 4.4-5.3)]} and substantial agreement on classification of fast breathing (Fleiss kappa, κ 0.71). Agreement was lowest in the youngest age group [< 2 months: SEM 6.2 (5.4-7.4) bpm, κ 0.48; 2-11 months: 4.7 (4.0-5.8) bpm, κ 0.84; 12-59 months: 2.6 (2.2-3.1) bpm, κ 0.8]. Reviewers found the functionalities of the tool helpful in annotating breaths, but remained uncertain about the validity of their annotations.
CONCLUSIONS
Before the new tool can be considered a reference standard for RR assessments, interrater agreement in children younger than 2 months must be improved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34124753
pii: 6297970
doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmab046
pmc: PMC8201841
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) [2021]. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Apr 2;9(4):e16531
pubmed: 32238340
EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Jun 10;12:20-30
pubmed: 31388660
Trop Med Int Health. 2011 Oct;16(10):1234-42
pubmed: 21752163
EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Oct 25;16:14
pubmed: 31832612
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Stat Med. 2002 May 15;21(9):1331-5
pubmed: 12111881
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Dec 1;198(11):1462-1463
pubmed: 30192633
J Trop Pediatr. 2021 Jan 29;67(1):
pubmed: 33280051
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Mar 30;9(3):e14405
pubmed: 32224491
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 May 1;197(9):1116-1127
pubmed: 29474107
Trop Med Int Health. 2017 Feb;22(2):139-147
pubmed: 27862739
Phys Ther. 1997 Jul;77(7):745-50
pubmed: 9225846
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2006 Oct;100(10):956-63
pubmed: 16455119