儿童最大呼吸压参考方程是否能充分预测其值?

Natalia Marcolin, Pedro Dal Lago, Jaksoel Cunha Silva, Jenifer Dos Santos, Luana Cefora Godoy Silva, Simone Dal Corso, Fernanda Cordoba Lanza
{"title":"儿童最大呼吸压参考方程是否能充分预测其值?","authors":"Natalia Marcolin, Pedro Dal Lago, Jaksoel Cunha Silva, Jenifer Dos Santos, Luana Cefora Godoy Silva, Simone Dal Corso, Fernanda Cordoba Lanza","doi":"10.14740/ijcp517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study aimed to investigate the agreement between the measured and estimated respiratory muscle strength in children and adolescents. We hypothesized that when using reference muscle strength equation consistent with the characteristics of the sample population, there would not be differences between the measured and predicted values. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. One hundred seventy-nine participants were healthy volunteers between 6 and 18 years of age. Those who had lung disease in the previous 4 weeks, abnormalities in the pulmonary function test, chronic cardiopulmonary disease, prematurity or inadequacy when performing the tests were excluded. Maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP and MEP) were assessed according to recommendations. The measured MIP and MEP values were compared to predicted values of the six most frequently cited prediction equations for children and adolescents. Results: Mean age was 12.3 +/- 3.7 years and 54% were male. The mean MIP was 87.5 +/- 27.1 cm H 2 O and MEP was 90.8 +/- 23.6 cm H 2 O. Three predicted MIP equations had similar results to the measured values (P > 0.05). For MEP, only one equation had similar values (P = 0.12). Instead, there was weak to moderate agreement of all equations. At Bland-Altman plots, the mean bias was greater than 6 cm H 2 O for all equations, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was about 30 cm H 2 O. Conclusion: There is significant variability between measured and predicted MIP and MEP values. Some equations showed similarity to measured values; however, the reliability was poor. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2023;12(2):37-44 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp517","PeriodicalId":13773,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are the Reference Equations for Maximal Respiratory Pressure in Children Adequately Predicting Their Value?\",\"authors\":\"Natalia Marcolin, Pedro Dal Lago, Jaksoel Cunha Silva, Jenifer Dos Santos, Luana Cefora Godoy Silva, Simone Dal Corso, Fernanda Cordoba Lanza\",\"doi\":\"10.14740/ijcp517\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: This study aimed to investigate the agreement between the measured and estimated respiratory muscle strength in children and adolescents. We hypothesized that when using reference muscle strength equation consistent with the characteristics of the sample population, there would not be differences between the measured and predicted values. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. One hundred seventy-nine participants were healthy volunteers between 6 and 18 years of age. Those who had lung disease in the previous 4 weeks, abnormalities in the pulmonary function test, chronic cardiopulmonary disease, prematurity or inadequacy when performing the tests were excluded. Maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP and MEP) were assessed according to recommendations. The measured MIP and MEP values were compared to predicted values of the six most frequently cited prediction equations for children and adolescents. Results: Mean age was 12.3 +/- 3.7 years and 54% were male. The mean MIP was 87.5 +/- 27.1 cm H 2 O and MEP was 90.8 +/- 23.6 cm H 2 O. Three predicted MIP equations had similar results to the measured values (P > 0.05). For MEP, only one equation had similar values (P = 0.12). Instead, there was weak to moderate agreement of all equations. At Bland-Altman plots, the mean bias was greater than 6 cm H 2 O for all equations, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was about 30 cm H 2 O. Conclusion: There is significant variability between measured and predicted MIP and MEP values. Some equations showed similarity to measured values; however, the reliability was poor. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2023;12(2):37-44 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp517\",\"PeriodicalId\":13773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp517\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在探讨儿童和青少年呼吸肌肉力量的测量值和估计值之间的一致性。我们假设当使用与样本总体特征相一致的参考肌力方程时,实测值与预测值之间不会存在差异。方法:采用横断面研究。179名参与者是6至18岁的健康志愿者。那些在过去4周内患有肺部疾病、肺功能检查异常、慢性心肺疾病、早产或检查不充分的人被排除在外。根据建议评估最大吸气和呼气压力(MIP和MEP)。测量的MIP和MEP值与六个最常被引用的儿童和青少年预测方程的预测值进行比较。结果:平均年龄12.3±3.7岁,男性占54%。平均MIP为87.5 +/- 27.1 cm h2o, MEP为90.8 +/- 23.6 cm h2o。三个预测MIP方程的结果与实测值相似(P >0.05)。对于MEP,只有一个方程具有相似的值(P = 0.12)。相反,所有方程都有弱到中等程度的一致性。在Bland-Altman图中,所有方程的平均偏差大于6 cm h2o, 95%置信区间(CI)约为30 cm h2o。结论:MIP和MEP的实测值与预测值之间存在显著差异。有些方程与实测值相似;然而,可靠性很差。国际儿科临床杂志。2023;12(2):37-44 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp517
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are the Reference Equations for Maximal Respiratory Pressure in Children Adequately Predicting Their Value?
Background: This study aimed to investigate the agreement between the measured and estimated respiratory muscle strength in children and adolescents. We hypothesized that when using reference muscle strength equation consistent with the characteristics of the sample population, there would not be differences between the measured and predicted values. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. One hundred seventy-nine participants were healthy volunteers between 6 and 18 years of age. Those who had lung disease in the previous 4 weeks, abnormalities in the pulmonary function test, chronic cardiopulmonary disease, prematurity or inadequacy when performing the tests were excluded. Maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP and MEP) were assessed according to recommendations. The measured MIP and MEP values were compared to predicted values of the six most frequently cited prediction equations for children and adolescents. Results: Mean age was 12.3 +/- 3.7 years and 54% were male. The mean MIP was 87.5 +/- 27.1 cm H 2 O and MEP was 90.8 +/- 23.6 cm H 2 O. Three predicted MIP equations had similar results to the measured values (P > 0.05). For MEP, only one equation had similar values (P = 0.12). Instead, there was weak to moderate agreement of all equations. At Bland-Altman plots, the mean bias was greater than 6 cm H 2 O for all equations, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was about 30 cm H 2 O. Conclusion: There is significant variability between measured and predicted MIP and MEP values. Some equations showed similarity to measured values; however, the reliability was poor. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2023;12(2):37-44 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp517
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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