Reliability and Validity of Maximal Respiratory Pressures
Maximal respiratory pressure is used to assess the inspiratory and expiratory muscles strength by using maximal inspiratory pressure (P ) and maximal expiratory pressure (P ). This study aimed to summarize and evaluate the reliability and validity of maximal respiratory pressure measurements. This s...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Respiratory care 2024-07, Vol.69 (7), p.881-890 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 890 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 881 |
| container_title | Respiratory care |
| container_volume | 69 |
| creator | Silveira, Bruna M F Pereira, Hugo L A Chaves, Gabriela Ho, Daniel G C Parreira, Verônica F |
| description | Maximal respiratory pressure is used to assess the inspiratory and expiratory muscles strength by using maximal inspiratory pressure (P
) and maximal expiratory pressure (P
). This study aimed to summarize and evaluate the reliability and validity of maximal respiratory pressure measurements.
This systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations and was reported by using the PRISMA checklist. Studies published before March 2023 were searched in PubMed and EMBASE databases.
A total of 642 studies were identified by using the online search strategy and manual search (602 and 40, respectively). Twenty-three studies were included. The level of evidence for test-retest reliability was moderate for P
and P
(intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), inter-rater reliability was low for P
and very low for P
(intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), and the measurement error was very low for P
and P
. In addition, concurrent validity presented a high level of evidence for P
and P
(r > 0.80).
Only concurrent validity of maximal respiratory pressure measured with the manometers evaluated in this review presented a high level of evidence. The quality of clinical studies by using maximal respiratory pressure would be improved if more high-quality studies on measurement properties, by following well established guidelines and the COSMIN initiative, were available. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4187/respcare.10641 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3049717937</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A800538275</galeid><sourcerecordid>A800538275</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c278t-a8b4021b963845e247a6552ab9b2a4ccf9ec6f91de741af4a8a51773f757daaf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkd1rHCEUxSU0ZLdJX_NYBgqlL7PRUUd9DCH9gA0JIemr3HG0a3DHjc5A97-Pmy9aWATlyu-cy70HoVOCF4xIcZZs3hhIdkFwy8gBmhPFaE1bzj6gOcYNrglt2Ax9zPmhlC3j6gjNqGyl5KydI3Vrg4fOBz9uKxj66jcE3--K6Kor-OvXEKrb0sQnGGPaVjelY57KdYIOHYRsP72-x-j---Xdxc96ef3j18X5sjaNkGMNsmO4IZ1qqWTcNkxAy3kDneoaYMY4ZU3rFOmtYAQcAwmcCEGd4KIHcPQYfXvx3aT4ONk86rXPxoYAg41T1hQzJYhQVBT0ywv6B4LVfnBxTGB2uD6XGHMqG8ELtdhDldPbtTdxsM6X__8EX_8RrCyEcZVjmEYfh7zX2aSYc7JOb1JZYNpqgvUuLv0Wl36Oqwg-v842dWvbv-Nv-dAnkc6P7Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3049717937</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reliability and Validity of Maximal Respiratory Pressures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Silveira, Bruna M F ; Pereira, Hugo L A ; Chaves, Gabriela ; Ho, Daniel G C ; Parreira, Verônica F</creator><creatorcontrib>Silveira, Bruna M F ; Pereira, Hugo L A ; Chaves, Gabriela ; Ho, Daniel G C ; Parreira, Verônica F</creatorcontrib><description>Maximal respiratory pressure is used to assess the inspiratory and expiratory muscles strength by using maximal inspiratory pressure (P
) and maximal expiratory pressure (P
). This study aimed to summarize and evaluate the reliability and validity of maximal respiratory pressure measurements.
This systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations and was reported by using the PRISMA checklist. Studies published before March 2023 were searched in PubMed and EMBASE databases.
A total of 642 studies were identified by using the online search strategy and manual search (602 and 40, respectively). Twenty-three studies were included. The level of evidence for test-retest reliability was moderate for P
and P
(intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), inter-rater reliability was low for P
and very low for P
(intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), and the measurement error was very low for P
and P
. In addition, concurrent validity presented a high level of evidence for P
and P
(r > 0.80).
Only concurrent validity of maximal respiratory pressure measured with the manometers evaluated in this review presented a high level of evidence. The quality of clinical studies by using maximal respiratory pressure would be improved if more high-quality studies on measurement properties, by following well established guidelines and the COSMIN initiative, were available.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-1324</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1943-3654</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-3654</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4187/respcare.10641</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38688546</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Daedalus Enterprises, Inc</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Database searching ; Evaluation ; Exhalation - physiology ; Humans ; Inhalation - physiology ; Internet/Web search services ; Manometry - methods ; Maximal Respiratory Pressures ; Measuring instruments ; Medical protocols ; Medical research ; Medicine, Experimental ; Muscle strength ; Muscle Strength - physiology ; Online searching ; Reproducibility of Results ; Respiratory Muscles - physiology ; Respiratory therapy</subject><ispartof>Respiratory care, 2024-07, Vol.69 (7), p.881-890</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2024 by Daedalus Enterprises.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c278t-a8b4021b963845e247a6552ab9b2a4ccf9ec6f91de741af4a8a51773f757daaf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38688546$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Silveira, Bruna M F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereira, Hugo L A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaves, Gabriela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, Daniel G C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parreira, Verônica F</creatorcontrib><title>Reliability and Validity of Maximal Respiratory Pressures</title><title>Respiratory care</title><addtitle>Respir Care</addtitle><description>Maximal respiratory pressure is used to assess the inspiratory and expiratory muscles strength by using maximal inspiratory pressure (P
) and maximal expiratory pressure (P
). This study aimed to summarize and evaluate the reliability and validity of maximal respiratory pressure measurements.
This systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations and was reported by using the PRISMA checklist. Studies published before March 2023 were searched in PubMed and EMBASE databases.
A total of 642 studies were identified by using the online search strategy and manual search (602 and 40, respectively). Twenty-three studies were included. The level of evidence for test-retest reliability was moderate for P
and P
(intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), inter-rater reliability was low for P
and very low for P
(intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), and the measurement error was very low for P
and P
. In addition, concurrent validity presented a high level of evidence for P
and P
(r > 0.80).
Only concurrent validity of maximal respiratory pressure measured with the manometers evaluated in this review presented a high level of evidence. The quality of clinical studies by using maximal respiratory pressure would be improved if more high-quality studies on measurement properties, by following well established guidelines and the COSMIN initiative, were available.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Database searching</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Exhalation - physiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inhalation - physiology</subject><subject>Internet/Web search services</subject><subject>Manometry - methods</subject><subject>Maximal Respiratory Pressures</subject><subject>Measuring instruments</subject><subject>Medical protocols</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Muscle strength</subject><subject>Muscle Strength - physiology</subject><subject>Online searching</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Respiratory Muscles - physiology</subject><subject>Respiratory therapy</subject><issn>0020-1324</issn><issn>1943-3654</issn><issn>1943-3654</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptkd1rHCEUxSU0ZLdJX_NYBgqlL7PRUUd9DCH9gA0JIemr3HG0a3DHjc5A97-Pmy9aWATlyu-cy70HoVOCF4xIcZZs3hhIdkFwy8gBmhPFaE1bzj6gOcYNrglt2Ax9zPmhlC3j6gjNqGyl5KydI3Vrg4fOBz9uKxj66jcE3--K6Kor-OvXEKrb0sQnGGPaVjelY57KdYIOHYRsP72-x-j---Xdxc96ef3j18X5sjaNkGMNsmO4IZ1qqWTcNkxAy3kDneoaYMY4ZU3rFOmtYAQcAwmcCEGd4KIHcPQYfXvx3aT4ONk86rXPxoYAg41T1hQzJYhQVBT0ywv6B4LVfnBxTGB2uD6XGHMqG8ELtdhDldPbtTdxsM6X__8EX_8RrCyEcZVjmEYfh7zX2aSYc7JOb1JZYNpqgvUuLv0Wl36Oqwg-v842dWvbv-Nv-dAnkc6P7Q</recordid><startdate>20240701</startdate><enddate>20240701</enddate><creator>Silveira, Bruna M F</creator><creator>Pereira, Hugo L A</creator><creator>Chaves, Gabriela</creator><creator>Ho, Daniel G C</creator><creator>Parreira, Verônica F</creator><general>Daedalus Enterprises, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240701</creationdate><title>Reliability and Validity of Maximal Respiratory Pressures</title><author>Silveira, Bruna M F ; Pereira, Hugo L A ; Chaves, Gabriela ; Ho, Daniel G C ; Parreira, Verônica F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c278t-a8b4021b963845e247a6552ab9b2a4ccf9ec6f91de741af4a8a51773f757daaf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Database searching</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Exhalation - physiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inhalation - physiology</topic><topic>Internet/Web search services</topic><topic>Manometry - methods</topic><topic>Maximal Respiratory Pressures</topic><topic>Measuring instruments</topic><topic>Medical protocols</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Muscle strength</topic><topic>Muscle Strength - physiology</topic><topic>Online searching</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Respiratory Muscles - physiology</topic><topic>Respiratory therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Silveira, Bruna M F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereira, Hugo L A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaves, Gabriela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, Daniel G C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parreira, Verônica F</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Respiratory care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Silveira, Bruna M F</au><au>Pereira, Hugo L A</au><au>Chaves, Gabriela</au><au>Ho, Daniel G C</au><au>Parreira, Verônica F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reliability and Validity of Maximal Respiratory Pressures</atitle><jtitle>Respiratory care</jtitle><addtitle>Respir Care</addtitle><date>2024-07-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>881</spage><epage>890</epage><pages>881-890</pages><issn>0020-1324</issn><issn>1943-3654</issn><eissn>1943-3654</eissn><abstract>Maximal respiratory pressure is used to assess the inspiratory and expiratory muscles strength by using maximal inspiratory pressure (P
) and maximal expiratory pressure (P
). This study aimed to summarize and evaluate the reliability and validity of maximal respiratory pressure measurements.
This systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations and was reported by using the PRISMA checklist. Studies published before March 2023 were searched in PubMed and EMBASE databases.
A total of 642 studies were identified by using the online search strategy and manual search (602 and 40, respectively). Twenty-three studies were included. The level of evidence for test-retest reliability was moderate for P
and P
(intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), inter-rater reliability was low for P
and very low for P
(intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), and the measurement error was very low for P
and P
. In addition, concurrent validity presented a high level of evidence for P
and P
(r > 0.80).
Only concurrent validity of maximal respiratory pressure measured with the manometers evaluated in this review presented a high level of evidence. The quality of clinical studies by using maximal respiratory pressure would be improved if more high-quality studies on measurement properties, by following well established guidelines and the COSMIN initiative, were available.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Daedalus Enterprises, Inc</pub><pmid>38688546</pmid><doi>10.4187/respcare.10641</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0020-1324 |
| ispartof | Respiratory care, 2024-07, Vol.69 (7), p.881-890 |
| issn | 0020-1324 1943-3654 1943-3654 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3049717937 |
| source | MEDLINE; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Analysis Database searching Evaluation Exhalation - physiology Humans Inhalation - physiology Internet/Web search services Manometry - methods Maximal Respiratory Pressures Measuring instruments Medical protocols Medical research Medicine, Experimental Muscle strength Muscle Strength - physiology Online searching Reproducibility of Results Respiratory Muscles - physiology Respiratory therapy |
| title | Reliability and Validity of Maximal Respiratory Pressures |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T21%3A55%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reliability%20and%20Validity%20of%20Maximal%20Respiratory%20Pressures&rft.jtitle=Respiratory%20care&rft.au=Silveira,%20Bruna%20M%20F&rft.date=2024-07-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=881&rft.epage=890&rft.pages=881-890&rft.issn=0020-1324&rft.eissn=1943-3654&rft_id=info:doi/10.4187/respcare.10641&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA800538275%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3049717937&rft_id=info:pmid/38688546&rft_galeid=A800538275&rfr_iscdi=true |