Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Fisioterapia em Movimento |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21714 |
Resumo: | Introduction: To avoid the selection of submaximal efforts during the assessment of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP and MEP), some reproducibility criteria have been suggested. Criteria that stand out are those proposed by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) and by the Brazilian Thoracic Association (BTA). However, no studies were found that compared these criteria or assessed the combination of both protocols. Objectives: To assess the pressure valuesselected and the number of maneuvers required to achieve maximum performance using the reproducibility criteria proposed by the ATS/ERS, the BTA and the present study. Materials and method: 113 healthy subjects (43.04 ± 16.94 years) from both genders were assessed according to the criteria proposed by the ATS/ERS, BTA and the present study. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis, followed by ANOVA for repeated measures and post hoc LSD or by Friedman test and post hoc Wilcoxon, accordingto the data distribution. Results: The criterion proposed by the present study resulted in a significantlyhigher number of maneuvers (MIP and MEP – median and 25%-75% interquartile range: 5[5-6], 4[3-5] and 3[3-4] for the present study criterion, BTA and ATS/ERS, respectively; p < 0.01) and higher pressure values (MIP – mean and 95% confidence interval: 103[91.43-103.72], 100[97.19-108.83] and 97.6[94.06-105.95]; MEP: median and 25%-75% interquartile range: 124.2[101.4-165.9], 123.3[95.4-153.8] and 118.4[95.5-152.7]; p < 0.05). Conclusion: The proposed criterion resulted in the selection of pressure values closer to the individual’s maximal capacity. This new criterion should be considered in future studies concerning MIP and MEP measurements. |
id |
PUC_PR-26_a4117d2ffe69e0f4af9525a54c5bf45b |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.periodicos.pucpr.br:article/21714 |
network_acronym_str |
PUC_PR-26 |
network_name_str |
Fisioterapia em Movimento |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressuresIntroduction: To avoid the selection of submaximal efforts during the assessment of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP and MEP), some reproducibility criteria have been suggested. Criteria that stand out are those proposed by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) and by the Brazilian Thoracic Association (BTA). However, no studies were found that compared these criteria or assessed the combination of both protocols. Objectives: To assess the pressure valuesselected and the number of maneuvers required to achieve maximum performance using the reproducibility criteria proposed by the ATS/ERS, the BTA and the present study. Materials and method: 113 healthy subjects (43.04 ± 16.94 years) from both genders were assessed according to the criteria proposed by the ATS/ERS, BTA and the present study. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis, followed by ANOVA for repeated measures and post hoc LSD or by Friedman test and post hoc Wilcoxon, accordingto the data distribution. Results: The criterion proposed by the present study resulted in a significantlyhigher number of maneuvers (MIP and MEP – median and 25%-75% interquartile range: 5[5-6], 4[3-5] and 3[3-4] for the present study criterion, BTA and ATS/ERS, respectively; p < 0.01) and higher pressure values (MIP – mean and 95% confidence interval: 103[91.43-103.72], 100[97.19-108.83] and 97.6[94.06-105.95]; MEP: median and 25%-75% interquartile range: 124.2[101.4-165.9], 123.3[95.4-153.8] and 118.4[95.5-152.7]; p < 0.05). Conclusion: The proposed criterion resulted in the selection of pressure values closer to the individual’s maximal capacity. This new criterion should be considered in future studies concerning MIP and MEP measurements.Editora PUCPRESS2017-09-18info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/2171410.1590/0103-5150.028.001.AO03Fisioterapia em Movimento (Physical Therapy in Movement); Vol. 28 No. 1 (2015)Fisioterapia em Movimento; v. 28 n. 1 (2015)1980-5918reponame:Fisioterapia em Movimentoinstname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)instacron:PUC_PRenghttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21714/20834Copyright (c) 2022 PUCPRESSinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSclauser Pessoa, Isabela Maria BMartins Coelho, Cristinade Souza Mendes, Liliane PatríciaMontemezzo, DayaneGomes Pereira, Danielle AparecidaFranco Parreira, Verônica2022-03-07T19:01:16Zoai:ojs.periodicos.pucpr.br:article/21714Revistahttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisioPRIhttps://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/oairubia.farias@pucpr.br||revista.fisioterapia@pucpr.br1980-59180103-5150opendoar:2022-03-07T19:01:16Fisioterapia em Movimento - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures |
title |
Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures |
spellingShingle |
Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures Sclauser Pessoa, Isabela Maria B |
title_short |
Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures |
title_full |
Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures |
title_sort |
Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures |
author |
Sclauser Pessoa, Isabela Maria B |
author_facet |
Sclauser Pessoa, Isabela Maria B Martins Coelho, Cristina de Souza Mendes, Liliane Patrícia Montemezzo, Dayane Gomes Pereira, Danielle Aparecida Franco Parreira, Verônica |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Martins Coelho, Cristina de Souza Mendes, Liliane Patrícia Montemezzo, Dayane Gomes Pereira, Danielle Aparecida Franco Parreira, Verônica |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Sclauser Pessoa, Isabela Maria B Martins Coelho, Cristina de Souza Mendes, Liliane Patrícia Montemezzo, Dayane Gomes Pereira, Danielle Aparecida Franco Parreira, Verônica |
description |
Introduction: To avoid the selection of submaximal efforts during the assessment of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP and MEP), some reproducibility criteria have been suggested. Criteria that stand out are those proposed by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) and by the Brazilian Thoracic Association (BTA). However, no studies were found that compared these criteria or assessed the combination of both protocols. Objectives: To assess the pressure valuesselected and the number of maneuvers required to achieve maximum performance using the reproducibility criteria proposed by the ATS/ERS, the BTA and the present study. Materials and method: 113 healthy subjects (43.04 ± 16.94 years) from both genders were assessed according to the criteria proposed by the ATS/ERS, BTA and the present study. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis, followed by ANOVA for repeated measures and post hoc LSD or by Friedman test and post hoc Wilcoxon, accordingto the data distribution. Results: The criterion proposed by the present study resulted in a significantlyhigher number of maneuvers (MIP and MEP – median and 25%-75% interquartile range: 5[5-6], 4[3-5] and 3[3-4] for the present study criterion, BTA and ATS/ERS, respectively; p < 0.01) and higher pressure values (MIP – mean and 95% confidence interval: 103[91.43-103.72], 100[97.19-108.83] and 97.6[94.06-105.95]; MEP: median and 25%-75% interquartile range: 124.2[101.4-165.9], 123.3[95.4-153.8] and 118.4[95.5-152.7]; p < 0.05). Conclusion: The proposed criterion resulted in the selection of pressure values closer to the individual’s maximal capacity. This new criterion should be considered in future studies concerning MIP and MEP measurements. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-09-18 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21714 10.1590/0103-5150.028.001.AO03 |
url |
https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21714 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.1590/0103-5150.028.001.AO03 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.pucpr.br/fisio/article/view/21714/20834 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 PUCPRESS info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 PUCPRESS |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Editora PUCPRESS |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Editora PUCPRESS |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Fisioterapia em Movimento (Physical Therapy in Movement); Vol. 28 No. 1 (2015) Fisioterapia em Movimento; v. 28 n. 1 (2015) 1980-5918 reponame:Fisioterapia em Movimento instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR) instacron:PUC_PR |
instname_str |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR) |
instacron_str |
PUC_PR |
institution |
PUC_PR |
reponame_str |
Fisioterapia em Movimento |
collection |
Fisioterapia em Movimento |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Fisioterapia em Movimento - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
rubia.farias@pucpr.br||revista.fisioterapia@pucpr.br |
_version_ |
1799138747228356608 |