Cargando…

Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index

OBJECTIVE: To verify the concurrent validity between the inspiratory muscle strength (IMS) values obtained in static (maximal inspiratory pressure [MIP]) and dynamic (S-Index) assessments. METHODS: Healthy individuals were submitted to two periods of evaluation: i) MIP, static maneuver to obtain IMS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Areias, Guilherme de Souza, Santiago, Luan Rodrigues, Teixeira, Daniel Sobral, Reis, Michel Silva
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454635/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32864924
http://dx.doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2019-0269
_version_ 1783575515406270464
author Areias, Guilherme de Souza
Santiago, Luan Rodrigues
Teixeira, Daniel Sobral
Reis, Michel Silva
author_facet Areias, Guilherme de Souza
Santiago, Luan Rodrigues
Teixeira, Daniel Sobral
Reis, Michel Silva
author_sort Areias, Guilherme de Souza
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To verify the concurrent validity between the inspiratory muscle strength (IMS) values obtained in static (maximal inspiratory pressure [MIP]) and dynamic (S-Index) assessments. METHODS: Healthy individuals were submitted to two periods of evaluation: i) MIP, static maneuver to obtain IMS, determined by the Mueller’s maneuver from residual volume (RV) until total lung capacity (TLC); ii) and S-Index, inspiration against open airway starting from RV until TLC. Both measures were performed by the same evaluator and the subjects received the same instructions. Isolated maneuvers with differences < 10% were considered as reproducible measures. RESULTS: Data from 45 subjects (21 males) were analyzed and that showed statistical difference between MIP and S-Index values (133.5 ± 33.3 and 125.6 ± 32.2 in cmH2O, respectively), with P=0.014. Linear regression showed r(2)=0.54 and S-Index prediction formula = 39.8+(0.75×MIP). Pearson’s correlation demonstrated a strong and significant association between the measures with r=0.74. The measurements showed good concordance evidenced by the Bland-Altman test. CONCLUSION: S-Index and MIP do not present similar values since they are evaluations of different events of the muscular contraction. However, they have a strong correlation and good agreement, which indicate that both are able to evaluate the IMS of healthy individuals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7454635
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74546352020-09-02 Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index Areias, Guilherme de Souza Santiago, Luan Rodrigues Teixeira, Daniel Sobral Reis, Michel Silva Braz J Cardiovasc Surg Original Article OBJECTIVE: To verify the concurrent validity between the inspiratory muscle strength (IMS) values obtained in static (maximal inspiratory pressure [MIP]) and dynamic (S-Index) assessments. METHODS: Healthy individuals were submitted to two periods of evaluation: i) MIP, static maneuver to obtain IMS, determined by the Mueller’s maneuver from residual volume (RV) until total lung capacity (TLC); ii) and S-Index, inspiration against open airway starting from RV until TLC. Both measures were performed by the same evaluator and the subjects received the same instructions. Isolated maneuvers with differences < 10% were considered as reproducible measures. RESULTS: Data from 45 subjects (21 males) were analyzed and that showed statistical difference between MIP and S-Index values (133.5 ± 33.3 and 125.6 ± 32.2 in cmH2O, respectively), with P=0.014. Linear regression showed r(2)=0.54 and S-Index prediction formula = 39.8+(0.75×MIP). Pearson’s correlation demonstrated a strong and significant association between the measures with r=0.74. The measurements showed good concordance evidenced by the Bland-Altman test. CONCLUSION: S-Index and MIP do not present similar values since they are evaluations of different events of the muscular contraction. However, they have a strong correlation and good agreement, which indicate that both are able to evaluate the IMS of healthy individuals. Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7454635/ /pubmed/32864924 http://dx.doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2019-0269 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Areias, Guilherme de Souza
Santiago, Luan Rodrigues
Teixeira, Daniel Sobral
Reis, Michel Silva
Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index
title Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index
title_full Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index
title_fullStr Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index
title_full_unstemmed Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index
title_short Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index
title_sort concurrent validity of the static and dynamic measures of inspiratory muscle strength: comparison between maximal inspiratory pressure and s-index
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454635/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32864924
http://dx.doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2019-0269
work_keys_str_mv AT areiasguilhermedesouza concurrentvalidityofthestaticanddynamicmeasuresofinspiratorymusclestrengthcomparisonbetweenmaximalinspiratorypressureandsindex
AT santiagoluanrodrigues concurrentvalidityofthestaticanddynamicmeasuresofinspiratorymusclestrengthcomparisonbetweenmaximalinspiratorypressureandsindex
AT teixeiradanielsobral concurrentvalidityofthestaticanddynamicmeasuresofinspiratorymusclestrengthcomparisonbetweenmaximalinspiratorypressureandsindex
AT reismichelsilva concurrentvalidityofthestaticanddynamicmeasuresofinspiratorymusclestrengthcomparisonbetweenmaximalinspiratorypressureandsindex