A New Protocol for Evaluating Maximum Respiratory Pressures in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis: Concurrent Validity and Test-Retest Reliability.

IF 3.6 3区医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2026-10-20 DOI:10.1097/NPT.0000000000000586

Raúl Fabero-Garrido, Sandra Aguilar-Zafra, Tamara Del Corral, Ibai López-de-Uralde-Villanueva

{"title":"A New Protocol for Evaluating Maximum Respiratory Pressures in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis: Concurrent Validity and Test-Retest Reliability.","authors":"Raúl Fabero-Garrido, Sandra Aguilar-Zafra, Tamara Del Corral, Ibai López-de-Uralde-Villanueva","doi":"10.1097/NPT.0000000000000586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and purpose: There is a need for new and inexpensive methods for the maximum inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP) test. The one-repetition maximum (1RM) test is an easy and cost-effective method to measure maximal strength. The purpose of this study was to validate a MIP/MEP test protocol based on the 1RM test, its test-retest reliability, and minimal detectable change (MDC) in individuals with multiple sclerosis.Methods: Fifty-two individuals (53.6 ± 10 years; 5.7 ± 1.8 points on Expanded Disability Status Scale) (46% relapsing-remitting; 23% primary progressive; 31% secondary progressive) attended two appointments 7 to 10 days apart. MIP/MEP tests were performed using a threshold valve device (1RM-based protocol) and a digital manometer (reference test). The 1RM-based protocol included an incremental phase (load increase [30 cmH2O] to achieve task failure) and a halving phase (load halfway between the lowest failed attempt and the last valid attempt was prescribed).Results: The concurrent validity of the 1RM-based protocol was good to excellent with respect to the reference test (MIP: day 1, n = 49, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC (95% confidence intervals)] = 0.87 (0.78-0.93); day 2, n = 48, ICC = 0.91 (0.82-0.95); MEP: day 1, n = 49, ICC = 0.82 (0.60-0.91); day 2, n = 49, ICC = 0.88 (0.64-0.95)). The test-retest reliability was good for MIP [n = 46, ICC = 0.88 (0.79-0.93)] and excellent for MEP [n = 48, ICC = 0.90 (0.83-0.94)]. The MDC(90-95) for MIP ranged from 23.7 to 28.2 cmH2O, and for MEP ranged from 19 to 22.5 cmH2O.Discussion and conclusion: This study validated a new 1RM-based protocol for the MIP/MEP tests using a respiratory muscle training threshold valve device in individuals with multiple sclerosis, showing good to excellent concurrent validity compared with the reference test, as well as good to excellent test-retest reliability. The MDC reported can be interpreted and applied in the clinical setting.","PeriodicalId":49030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000586","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: There is a need for new and inexpensive methods for the maximum inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP) test. The one-repetition maximum (1RM) test is an easy and cost-effective method to measure maximal strength. The purpose of this study was to validate a MIP/MEP test protocol based on the 1RM test, its test-retest reliability, and minimal detectable change (MDC) in individuals with multiple sclerosis.

Methods: Fifty-two individuals (53.6 ± 10 years; 5.7 ± 1.8 points on Expanded Disability Status Scale) (46% relapsing-remitting; 23% primary progressive; 31% secondary progressive) attended two appointments 7 to 10 days apart. MIP/MEP tests were performed using a threshold valve device (1RM-based protocol) and a digital manometer (reference test). The 1RM-based protocol included an incremental phase (load increase [30 cmH2O] to achieve task failure) and a halving phase (load halfway between the lowest failed attempt and the last valid attempt was prescribed).

Results: The concurrent validity of the 1RM-based protocol was good to excellent with respect to the reference test (MIP: day 1, n = 49, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC (95% confidence intervals)] = 0.87 (0.78-0.93); day 2, n = 48, ICC = 0.91 (0.82-0.95); MEP: day 1, n = 49, ICC = 0.82 (0.60-0.91); day 2, n = 49, ICC = 0.88 (0.64-0.95)). The test-retest reliability was good for MIP [n = 46, ICC = 0.88 (0.79-0.93)] and excellent for MEP [n = 48, ICC = 0.90 (0.83-0.94)]. The MDC(90-95) for MIP ranged from 23.7 to 28.2 cmH2O, and for MEP ranged from 19 to 22.5 cmH2O.

Discussion and conclusion: This study validated a new 1RM-based protocol for the MIP/MEP tests using a respiratory muscle training threshold valve device in individuals with multiple sclerosis, showing good to excellent concurrent validity compared with the reference test, as well as good to excellent test-retest reliability. The MDC reported can be interpreted and applied in the clinical setting.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估多发性硬化症患者最大呼吸压力的新方案：并发效度和重测信度。

背景和目的：需要一种新的廉价的最大吸气和呼气压力（MIP/MEP）测试方法。单次重复最大强度（1RM）试验是一种简单而经济的测量最大强度的方法。本研究的目的是验证基于1RM测试的MIP/MEP测试方案，其测试-重测可靠性，以及多发性硬化症患者的最小可检测变化（MDC）。方法：52例患者（53.6±10岁；扩展残疾状态量表5.7±1.8分）（46%复发缓解；23%原发性进展；31%继发性进展）间隔7至10天两次就诊。使用阈值阀装置（基于1rm的协议）和数字压力计（参考测试）进行MIP/MEP测试。基于1rm的协议包括一个增量阶段（负载增加[30 cmH2O]以实现任务失败）和一个减半阶段（规定最低失败尝试和最后一次有效尝试之间的负载减半）。结果：基于1rm的方案相对于参考检验(MIP：第1天，n = 49，类内相关系数[ICC（95%置信区间）]= 0.87(0.78-0.93)，并发效度为良至优；第2天，n = 48, ICC = 0.91 (0.82-0.95)；MEP：第1天，n = 49, ICC = 0.82 (0.60-0.91)；第2天，n = 49, ICC = 0.88(0.64-0.95))。MIP的重测信度较好[n = 46, ICC = 0.88 (0.79-0.93)]， MEP的重测信度较好[n = 48, ICC = 0.90(0.83-0.94)]。MIP的MDC（90-95）范围为23.7至28.2 cmH2O， MEP的MDC范围为19至22.5 cmH2O。讨论与结论：本研究验证了一种新的基于1rm的方案，用于多发性硬化症患者使用呼吸肌训练阈值阀装置进行MIP/MEP测试，与参考测试相比，该方案具有良好至优异的并发效度，以及良好至优异的重测信度。MDC报告可以解释和应用于临床设置。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-REHABILITATION

CiteScore

5.70

自引率

2.60%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy (JNPT) is an indexed resource for dissemination of research-based evidence related to neurologic physical therapy intervention. High standards of quality are maintained through a rigorous, double-blinded, peer-review process and adherence to standards recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. With an international editorial board made up of preeminent researchers and clinicians, JNPT publishes articles of global relevance for examination, evaluation, prognosis, intervention, and outcomes for individuals with movement deficits due to neurologic conditions. Through systematic reviews, research articles, case studies, and clinical perspectives, JNPT promotes the integration of evidence into theory, education, research, and practice of neurologic physical therapy, spanning the continuum from pathophysiology to societal participation.