No Cover Image

Journal article 209 views 45 downloads

Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment / J. Larribaut, M. Gruet, S. Verges, Kelly Mackintosh, Melitta McNarry

Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, Volume: 273, Start page: 103321

Swansea University Authors: Kelly Mackintosh, Melitta McNarry

  • larribaut2019.pdf

    PDF | Accepted Manuscript

    Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC-BY-NC-ND).

    Download (740.83KB)

Abstract

The optimal method for respiratory muscle endurance (RME) assessment remains unclear. This study assessed the test-retest reliability of two RME-test methodologies. Fifteen healthy adults attended the laboratory on four occasions, separated by 5 ± 2 days, and completed each test in a random, “one on...

Full description

Published in: Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology
ISSN: 1569-9048
Published: Elsevier BV 2020
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa52418
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2019-10-15T03:09:15Z
last_indexed 2020-11-07T04:09:42Z
id cronfa52418
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2020-11-06T17:50:48.7689313</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>52418</id><entry>2019-10-14</entry><title>Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>bdb20e3f31bcccf95c7bc116070c4214</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-0355-6357</ORCID><firstname>Kelly</firstname><surname>Mackintosh</surname><name>Kelly Mackintosh</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>062f5697ff59f004bc8c713955988398</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-0813-7477</ORCID><firstname>Melitta</firstname><surname>McNarry</surname><name>Melitta McNarry</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2019-10-14</date><deptcode>STSC</deptcode><abstract>The optimal method for respiratory muscle endurance (RME) assessment remains unclear. This study assessed the test-retest reliability of two RME-test methodologies. Fifteen healthy adults attended the laboratory on four occasions, separated by 5&#x2009;&#xB1;&#x2009;2 days, and completed each test in a random, &#x201C;one on two&#x201D; order. They performed spirometry testing, maximal respiratory pressure assessment and two different RME tests: an inspiratory resistive breathing (IRB) and an isocapnic hyperpnea endurance (IHE) test. Typical error, expressed as coefficient of variation, for IRB maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and IHE maximal ventilation were 12.21 (8.85&#x2013;19.67) % and 10.73 (7.78&#x2013;17.29) %, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the same parameters were 0.83 (0.46-0.94) and 0.80 (0.41-0.93), respectively. No correlations were found between RME parameters derived from the IHE and IRB tests (all p&#x2009;&gt;&#x2009;0.05). Significant positive correlations were found between both IRB and IHE outcomes and spirometry parameters, MIP and maximal expiratory pressure (p&#x2009;&lt;&#x2009;0.05).Given these results, IRB and IHE appear to be suitable for RME testing in healthy people, although they may reflect different physiological mechanisms (respiratory mechanics and respiratory muscle capacity for IHE test vs. inspiratory muscle capacity for IRB test). Future studies are therefore warranted that compare IRB and IHE tests in clinical settings.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Respiratory Physiology &amp; Neurobiology</journal><volume>273</volume><journalNumber/><paginationStart>103321</paginationStart><paginationEnd/><publisher>Elsevier BV</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>1569-9048</issnPrint><issnElectronic/><keywords/><publishedDay>28</publishedDay><publishedMonth>2</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2020</publishedYear><publishedDate>2020-02-28</publishedDate><doi>10.1016/j.resp.2019.103321</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Sport and Exercise Sciences</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>STSC</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2020-11-06T17:50:48.7689313</lastEdited><Created>2019-10-14T10:06:17.6060403</Created><path><level id="1"/><level id="2"/></path><authors><author><firstname>J.</firstname><surname>Larribaut</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>M.</firstname><surname>Gruet</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>S.</firstname><surname>Verges</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Kelly</firstname><surname>Mackintosh</surname><orcid>0000-0003-0355-6357</orcid><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Melitta</firstname><surname>McNarry</surname><orcid>0000-0003-0813-7477</orcid><order>5</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>52418__15576__2a0393d4f8ae4dd493887f801ffac3b3.pdf</filename><originalFilename>larribaut2019.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2019-10-14T10:14:11.2730000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>758615</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Accepted Manuscript</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><action/><embargoDate>2020-10-17T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><documentNotes>Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC-BY-NC-ND).</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2020-11-06T17:50:48.7689313 v2 52418 2019-10-14 Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment bdb20e3f31bcccf95c7bc116070c4214 0000-0003-0355-6357 Kelly Mackintosh Kelly Mackintosh true false 062f5697ff59f004bc8c713955988398 0000-0003-0813-7477 Melitta McNarry Melitta McNarry true false 2019-10-14 STSC The optimal method for respiratory muscle endurance (RME) assessment remains unclear. This study assessed the test-retest reliability of two RME-test methodologies. Fifteen healthy adults attended the laboratory on four occasions, separated by 5 ± 2 days, and completed each test in a random, “one on two” order. They performed spirometry testing, maximal respiratory pressure assessment and two different RME tests: an inspiratory resistive breathing (IRB) and an isocapnic hyperpnea endurance (IHE) test. Typical error, expressed as coefficient of variation, for IRB maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and IHE maximal ventilation were 12.21 (8.85–19.67) % and 10.73 (7.78–17.29) %, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the same parameters were 0.83 (0.46-0.94) and 0.80 (0.41-0.93), respectively. No correlations were found between RME parameters derived from the IHE and IRB tests (all p > 0.05). Significant positive correlations were found between both IRB and IHE outcomes and spirometry parameters, MIP and maximal expiratory pressure (p < 0.05).Given these results, IRB and IHE appear to be suitable for RME testing in healthy people, although they may reflect different physiological mechanisms (respiratory mechanics and respiratory muscle capacity for IHE test vs. inspiratory muscle capacity for IRB test). Future studies are therefore warranted that compare IRB and IHE tests in clinical settings. Journal Article Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology 273 103321 Elsevier BV 1569-9048 28 2 2020 2020-02-28 10.1016/j.resp.2019.103321 COLLEGE NANME Sport and Exercise Sciences COLLEGE CODE STSC Swansea University 2020-11-06T17:50:48.7689313 2019-10-14T10:06:17.6060403 J. Larribaut 1 M. Gruet 2 S. Verges 3 Kelly Mackintosh 0000-0003-0355-6357 4 Melitta McNarry 0000-0003-0813-7477 5 52418__15576__2a0393d4f8ae4dd493887f801ffac3b3.pdf larribaut2019.pdf 2019-10-14T10:14:11.2730000 Output 758615 application/pdf Accepted Manuscript true 2020-10-17T00:00:00.0000000 Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC-BY-NC-ND). true eng
title Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment
spellingShingle Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment
Kelly, Mackintosh
Melitta, McNarry
title_short Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment
title_full Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment
title_fullStr Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment
title_full_unstemmed Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment
title_sort Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment
author_id_str_mv bdb20e3f31bcccf95c7bc116070c4214
062f5697ff59f004bc8c713955988398
author_id_fullname_str_mv bdb20e3f31bcccf95c7bc116070c4214_***_Kelly, Mackintosh
062f5697ff59f004bc8c713955988398_***_Melitta, McNarry
author Kelly, Mackintosh
Melitta, McNarry
author2 J. Larribaut
M. Gruet
S. Verges
Kelly Mackintosh
Melitta McNarry
format Journal article
container_title Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology
container_volume 273
container_start_page 103321
publishDate 2020
institution Swansea University
issn 1569-9048
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.resp.2019.103321
publisher Elsevier BV
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description The optimal method for respiratory muscle endurance (RME) assessment remains unclear. This study assessed the test-retest reliability of two RME-test methodologies. Fifteen healthy adults attended the laboratory on four occasions, separated by 5 ± 2 days, and completed each test in a random, “one on two” order. They performed spirometry testing, maximal respiratory pressure assessment and two different RME tests: an inspiratory resistive breathing (IRB) and an isocapnic hyperpnea endurance (IHE) test. Typical error, expressed as coefficient of variation, for IRB maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and IHE maximal ventilation were 12.21 (8.85–19.67) % and 10.73 (7.78–17.29) %, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the same parameters were 0.83 (0.46-0.94) and 0.80 (0.41-0.93), respectively. No correlations were found between RME parameters derived from the IHE and IRB tests (all p > 0.05). Significant positive correlations were found between both IRB and IHE outcomes and spirometry parameters, MIP and maximal expiratory pressure (p < 0.05).Given these results, IRB and IHE appear to be suitable for RME testing in healthy people, although they may reflect different physiological mechanisms (respiratory mechanics and respiratory muscle capacity for IHE test vs. inspiratory muscle capacity for IRB test). Future studies are therefore warranted that compare IRB and IHE tests in clinical settings.
published_date 2020-02-28T04:12:39Z
_version_ 1711117025883979776
score 10.821735