Concurrent Validity of a Low-Cost Manometer for Objective Assessments of Respiratory Muscle Strength.
Concurrent Validity of a Low-Cost Manometer for Objective Assessments of Respiratory Muscle Strength.
复制标题
低成本压力计客观评估呼吸肌力量的同时有效性。
DOI：
10.1002/lary.31106
复制
发表时间：
2024
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Rameau,Anaïs
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Curtis,JamesA;Mocchetti,Valentina;Rameau,Anaïs
目的本研究检查了两种数字压力计之间最大呼气（MEP）和吸气（MIP）压力读数的一致性：（1）MicroRPM -呼吸肌力测试的金标准压力计;和（2）LDM -一种低成本的，可商购的，方法采用阳性（MEP）和阴性（MIP）测压法，在受控的实验室环境中，使用3升注射器对MicroRPM和LDM同时施加压力。比较压力读数，并使用Lin一致性相关性（ρc）分析一致性。如果<0.90，则一致性被解释为“差”，如果0.90 - <0.95，则一致性被解释为“中等”，如果0.95 - <0.99，则一致性被解释为“显著”，如果≥0.99，则一致性被解释为“极好”。百分之二十的压力试验重复第二个researcher检查重测信度。ResultsA共完成了150次试验，范围从-167到+208厘米水柱。MicroRPM和LDM之间的压力读数绝对差值中值为0.3 cmH 2 O。Lin的一致性相关性显示LDM和MicroRPM器械之间的一致性为“极好"，重测可靠性评估显示LDM和MicroRPM器械之间的一致性为”实质至极好"，一致性相关系数为ρc= 0.999（95%CI：0.999-0.999）。结论LDM和MicroRPM之间MEP和MIP压力读数的中位数差异为1.0%。尽管存在这些相对较小的差异，但两种压力计之间存在良好的一致性。这些数据表明，LDM可能是MicroRPM的有效、低成本替代品，可在临床实践中客观评估呼吸强度;然而，需要在健康成人和患者人群中进行额外的研究。
Objective(s)This study examined the agreement in maximal expiratory (MEP) and inspiratory (MIP) pressure readings between two digital manometers: (1) the MicroRPM – the gold‐standard manometer for respiratory muscle strength testing; and (2) the LDM – a low‐cost, commercially available, alternative manometer.MethodsPositive (MEP) and negative (MIP) pressures were simultaneously applied to the MicroRPM and LDM using a 3‐liter syringe within a controlled laboratory setting. Pressure readings were compared, and agreement was analyzed using Lin's concordance correlation (ρc). Agreement was interpreted as ‘poor’ if <0.90, ‘moderate’ if 0.90 – <0.95, ‘substantial’ if 0.95 – <0.99, and ‘excellent’ if ≥0.99. Twenty percent of the pressure trials were repeated by a second researcher to examine test–retest reliability.ResultsA total of 150 trials were completed, ranging from −167 to +208 cmH2O. There was a median absolute difference of 0.3 cmH2O in pressure readings between the MicroRPM and the LDM. Lin's concordance correlation revealed ‘excellent’ agreement between the LDM and MicroRPM devices, with test–retest reliability assessment revealing ‘substantial‐to‐excellent’ agreement between the LDM and MicroRPM devices, with a concordance correlation coefficient ofρc= 0.999 (95% CI: 0.999–0.999).ConclusionsThere was a median difference of 1.0% in MEP and MIP pressure readings consistently observed between the LDM and MicroRPM. Despite these relatively small differences, excellent agreement between the two manometers was present. These data suggest the LDM may be a valid, lower cost alternative to the MicroRPM for objectively assessing respiratory strength in clinical practice; however, additional research is needed in healthy adults and in patient populations.Level of EvidenceNALaryngoscope, 134:1831–1836, 2024