Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sclauser Pessoa, Isabela Maria B
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Martins Coelho, Cristina, de Souza Mendes, Liliane Patrícia, Montemezzo, Dayane, Gomes Pereira, Danielle Aparecida, Franco Parreira, Verônica
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