Psychometric properties of volitional tests used to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance: A systematic review.

0 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy Pub Date : 2025-03-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.29390/001c.131842
Thiago Queiroz Pires, Bruno Prata Martinez, Leilane Marcos, Ísis Resende Ramos, Virgínia Pinheiro, Mansueto Gomes Neto
{"title":"Psychometric properties of volitional tests used to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance: A systematic review.","authors":"Thiago Queiroz Pires, Bruno Prata Martinez, Leilane Marcos, Ísis Resende Ramos, Virgínia Pinheiro, Mansueto Gomes Neto","doi":"10.29390/001c.131842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>It is essential that diagnostic tests for evaluating respiratory muscles have proven reliability and validity. This study aims to synthesize studies that evaluated the psychometric properties of volitional tests used to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and SciELO. Primary studies that evaluated the reliability and validity of volitional tests to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Tool (CAT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight studies were included in this review, describing the psychometric properties of eight different approaches to measuring respiratory muscle strength and endurance. Respiratory muscle strength and endurance were assessed using static maximal inspiratory pressure, static maximal expiratory pressure, dynamic maximal inspiratory pressure, sustained maximal inspiratory pressure, nasal inspiratory pressure, manual respiratory muscle measurements, and maximal incremental inspiratory muscle performance. Overall, the studies included were of good methodological quality. Data related to validity and reliability showed excellent results for the maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum expiratory pressure, with maximum ICC values of 0.979 (CI 0.947-0.991) and 0.989 (CI 0.022-0.001), respectively. Other tests evaluated did not present high reliability and validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review concluded that volitional tests vary in reliability for measures of respiratory muscle strength and endurance. The more traditional ones, such as maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum expiratory pressure, presented higher validity and reliability values compared to the other tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":39373,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy","volume":"61 ","pages":"33-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11890114/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29390/001c.131842","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: It is essential that diagnostic tests for evaluating respiratory muscles have proven reliability and validity. This study aims to synthesize studies that evaluated the psychometric properties of volitional tests used to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and SciELO. Primary studies that evaluated the reliability and validity of volitional tests to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Tool (CAT).

Results: Twenty-eight studies were included in this review, describing the psychometric properties of eight different approaches to measuring respiratory muscle strength and endurance. Respiratory muscle strength and endurance were assessed using static maximal inspiratory pressure, static maximal expiratory pressure, dynamic maximal inspiratory pressure, sustained maximal inspiratory pressure, nasal inspiratory pressure, manual respiratory muscle measurements, and maximal incremental inspiratory muscle performance. Overall, the studies included were of good methodological quality. Data related to validity and reliability showed excellent results for the maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum expiratory pressure, with maximum ICC values of 0.979 (CI 0.947-0.991) and 0.989 (CI 0.022-0.001), respectively. Other tests evaluated did not present high reliability and validity.

Conclusion: This review concluded that volitional tests vary in reliability for measures of respiratory muscle strength and endurance. The more traditional ones, such as maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum expiratory pressure, presented higher validity and reliability values compared to the other tests.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy
Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy Health Professions-Health Professions (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The CJRT is published four times a year and represents the interests of respiratory therapists nationally and internationally. The CJRT has been redesigned to act as an educational dissemination tool. The CJRT encourages submission of original articles, papers, commentaries, case studies, literature reviews and directed reading papers. Submissions can be sent to Rita Hansen.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信