|
Validity and Reliability of the Res-Rhythm: A Prototype Portable Respiratory Rate Measurement System in Healthy Subjects |
|---|---|
| รหัสดีโอไอ | |
| Creator | Sujittra Kluayhomthong |
| Title | Validity and Reliability of the Res-Rhythm: A Prototype Portable Respiratory Rate Measurement System in Healthy Subjects |
| Contributor | Nontanat Sathaporn, Akkapop Prasompon, Parkpoom Pipatbanjong, Watjanarat Panwong |
| Publisher | Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University |
| Publication Year | 2569 |
| Journal Title | Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences |
| Journal Vol. | 33 |
| Journal No. | 1 |
| Page no. | 18-25 |
| Keyword | prototype, respiratory rate measurement, validity, reliability |
| URL Website | https://he01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jmhs |
| Website title | TCI ThaiJO |
| ISSN | 2651-2084 |
| Abstract | Respiratory rate is one of the important vital signs, typically assessed by observing the number of breaths per minute. This can result in measurement errors and variability between observers. Furthermore, commercially available respiratory rate measurement devices tend to be expensive. This study aimed to develop a portable prototype system for measuring respiratory rate, consisting of a chest belt sensor and a display application. Validity was tested by comparing it with a BIOPAC device, and reliability was tested using the retest method in 29 healthy volunteers with an average age of 21.61 ? 2.24 years. The test was conducted during a 5-minute rest period and a 5-minute exercise period, which involved marching in place, for a total of 10 minutes, repeated twice. Validity was analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), and reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) at the 95% confidence interval. The study found that the prototype device demonstrated very high validity during both rest (r=0.94, p<0.001) and exercise (r= 0.90, p<0.001) when compared to the BIOPAC device. The average difference between the two devices was -0.35 ? 1.5 breaths per minute (2.01%) during rest and -0.81 ? 1.90 breaths per minute (4.18%) during exercise. When analyzing test-retest reliability, the prototype system showed good reliability (ICC=0.75, p<0.01) at rest and moderate reliability (ICC=0.57, p<0.01) during exercise. The average difference between the two measurements was -1.11 ? 3.89 breaths per minute (6.78%) at rest and -0.70 ? 4.50 breaths per minute (3.81%) during exercise. In conclusion, the prototype system demonstrated acceptable levels of validity and reliability. Additionally, it can be further developed into a portable respiratory rate measurement device for clinical and research applications. |
